The way Supreme Court rules work, you need five of the nine justices to decide a matter.
We therefore need five justices willing to overturn The Evil Decision in order to allow the process of ending abortion in America to begin.
How many do we have now?
At least two (Scalia and Thomas). Possibly four (Roberts and Alito).
We need five.
Number five could arrive if Darth Kennedy flips back from the Dark Side, as some have suggested he might. (I’ve heard it rumored that he was unhappy with the way the Webster decision came out.) But I’m not holding my breath for that. He’s too enraptured of European liberal elites that he wants to read the American law in terms of what they do with their laws, which is as far as I am concerned an Impeachable Offense for a Supreme Court justice. (The Founders who had just fought and bled for American independence would have been aghast at the idea that European law should constrain American law in any way whatsoever.)
The most likely way to get five justices is through the retirement of John Paul Stevens (who’s eighty six) or Ruth Bader Ginsburgh (who has had health problems). One of these two retirements is probably probable in the next three years.
With the fifth anti-Evil Decision vote hanging in the balance, the forces of darkness will be doing all they can to MoveOn.Org their senatorial meat puppets into full obstruction mode, so we are likely to be looking at confirmation armageddon in the Senate.
Or not.
What I find interesting is how really badly the Dems shot themselves in the foot with their current strategy, and I’m not just talking about the Roberts and Alito confirmations.
As soon as Bush got into office the Dems started stonewalling his judicial nominees, and they started doing the unprecedented thing of using the filibuster as part of their obstruction efforts.
They did this to send a warning shot across Bush’s bow and convince him not to nominate originalists when it came Supreme Court time, because they would fight tooth and claw if he did that, as shown by their willingness to go filibuster when the stakes were even smaller.
But in reality this was a HUGE strategic miscalculation.
What using the filibuster that early in the process did was blog off the Senate Republicans enough to make them willing to ELIMINATE the filibuster for judicial nominees.
Now, barring a truly Miers-level miscalculation on Bush’s part, any SCOTUS nominee he sends up to the hill is basically unfilibusterable, as shown by Kerry’s recent disgrace of himself on the Senate floor.
The thing is: The filibuster strategy COULD have worked–IF the Dems hadn’t sprung the trap too early. If they had waited until Bush’s first SCOTUS nominee to use it then the Republicans would have been caught off guard and would not already have had time to get angry enough to eliminate the judicial nominee filibuster.
Bush then might have been cowed into sending up judicial rag dolls like Harriet Miers.
But–thanks to the powers of goodness–this fact was hidden from their eyes, and they brought about the effective end of the filibuster strategy before it could be deployed when it would matter the most.
As a result, the Dems need a new strategy (like winning control of the Senate) if they want to ensure that the Evil Decision remains firmly in place.
I love it when a plan comes together!
We are at five now due to a secret Vatican directive.
http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/Pics/kennedyactivateletter.png
JIMMY WROTE: “he wants to read the American law in terms of what they do with their laws, which is as far as I am concerned an Impeachable Offense for a Supreme Court justice”
nownow. i’m not impressed with the way K read that law, either, but it is –if not common–certainly not unusual at all for one legal system to look to another for guidance on this or that point. like Paul said, examine everything, keep what is good. it’s certainly not an impeachable offense.
That’s a good idea for a legislator, whose duty it is to enact laws, but it’s a dereliction of duty for a justice whose duty is to interpret the law in light of the Constitution of the United States.
Guys, I have to catch a flight, but, seriously, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Now, don’t be silly about this. Stop labelling K –with whom we all have plenty of disagreements– as being in “dereliction of duty” or as committing an “impeachable offense” on this one. That is, stop, if you want to be taken seriously in these discusions next time.
Gee Ed, you don’t have to be so tactful, we’re all friends here. Feel free to peremptorially cut others off at the knee and explain later if you have to, they’ll understand. I’m sure Jimmy’d do the same to you. 🙂
If you are going to accuse us of being “silly”, atleast show us the evidence that we’re wrong.
That sure didn’t seem like Ed Peters. I hope he’s not flying with Rod Serling.
The thing is, looking to foreign models of law COULD be militantly anti-American, or it could be simply prudent circumspection.
I don’t know WHY one would need to start looking outside the Constitution, though, unless one thought it inadequate in some way. Foreign governments don’t normally worry about living up to the standards of OUR Constitution.
I can see reason to be nervous about American judges saying, “Well, gosh, how do they look at this in Amsterdam?”.
I’ve also heard rumors that Souter intends to retire at a relatively very early age. And, despite the way he votes, he was appointed by a Republican.
I would probably stop just sort of impeachment. I think it’s legitimate to look to foreign courts for some minimal level of instruction, espeically when the nation is similar to our own (ie. Great Britain, Canada). But ultimately our Constitution was designed for the American people, and it is absolutely wrong to reach a judgment based on the decisions of a court in a country with a different culture and a different constitution. It’s wrong, but probably not quite impeachable (though I am open to being convinced otherwise).
OK, Paul, let me take a shot at it, and Ed can skewer me later. (Just kidding, Ed).
A Supreme Court Justice swears an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States. It seems to me that the justices are required, therefore, to judge the constitutionality of a law based solely on the Constitution, and not by the laws of other countries. For a justice to do this seems to me to be a violation of his oath. I think that’s a dereliction of duty and possibly an impeachable offence.
(Gotta find me a suit of armor before Ed gets back to his computer).
I’ll try speaking for Ed. To argue that we should not look to foreign laws is actually against our judicial system. The order of priority in interpreting law is the Constitution, Federal Statutues, and then English Common Law. While I don’t agree with the foreign citations, they were argued (as far as my understanding goes) on trying to establish what a Common Law definition of “Cruel and Unusual Punishment” was. Now you could argue they were being intellectually dishonest in doing so, but the actual citation on the face is not unethical let alone impeachable.
I agree with you about English Common Law, but I don’t think that was what Darth Kennedy was referring to. What concerns me is the judicial philosophy that says: “This is what the French say, and I think it’s a good idea, so I’ll read it into our Constitution, even though it’s not spelled out there, but there must be some prenumbra that I can say points to it, and, besides, I’m a member of the Anointed, and I know better than the rabble what’s good for them.”
Can we clone Scalia and Thomas?
If only President Bush would renominate Robert Bork. I know he is almost 79 but man would those confirmation hearings be fun to watch!
No need for Judge Bork to have fun.
Janice Rogers Brown. ’nuff said.
Jef Miller, that was hilarious.
The Dems (i.e., Kerry and Kennedy) really shot themselves in the foot when they pushed for the cloture vote to filibuster Alito.
The vote for Alito was only 59-41, which would suggest (especially for future nominees for SCOTUS) that a filibuster would be effective. However, when Kerry pushed for the filibuster vote, it came down with only 20 or 21 votes, not the same 41 he was expecting.
This blew their cover – they don’t have the votes for the filibuster!
This still doesn’t change the fact that SC Justices Stephen Breyer believes that he is a legislator (in charge of weighing the purposes and consequences of a law) rather than a judge (in charge of interpreting laws as they apply to an individual case and its constitutionality).
From “Breyer Says ‘Zero’ Politics on the Court” (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060208/ap_on_go_su_co/breyer_chicago_1) :
“I tend to emphasize purpose and consequences,” said Breyer, who was nominated for the high court by President Clinton. “Others emphasize language, a more literal reading of the text, history and tradition — believing that those help you reach a more objective answer.”
That is impeachable – not doing his job, but doing another’s job, for which he was not hired.
well, i’m back. mzf’s response was basically sound. SG, i don’t mind a bit of toungue in cheek, but it kept getting repeated, which means it wasn’t funny anymore, and some people and posters i respect were coming off as yahoos. impeach justice kennedy. gimme a break. they started it, not me. anyway….
the SC of Missouri looks to the SC of California; India looks to England, South Africa looks to Justinian, the USSC can, AND SHOULD, look to natural law and while they’re at it, they could look to Germany (on abortion). Every one of these is an example of one legal system looking to another for guidance, for what is called “persausive arguments” not “controlling arguments”, and none of them are hiearchically linked.
well, you can look into this possiblity, or not, as you all see fit.
Order ambien.
Ambien order wow what a price restorejustice org.