Monday, September 05, 2005
John Roberts For Chief Justice
I can't think of a single credible case in which a Catholic public official has been accused of permitting the dictates of Rome to override the national interest on public policy issues. Aside from my philosophical interest in the conflicts that bedevil Catholics who try to reconcile Church authority with contrary personal beliefs, I have no concern that any public official would compromise his/her duty because of his/her religious beliefs.I am glad Roberts was nominated for Chief Justice. For one thing, the court needs a Chief Justice in the upcoming term, and it would be hard for any other nominee to be vetted as thoroughly by all Bush's opponents. To me this seems fair play since at least everyone has had time to look him over. Also, what I have read of Roberts indicates that he has a very good personality type to be a Chief Justice.
No nominee or candidate should be examined on personal religious convictions. That's a very slippery slope that verges on violating the Constitution, which says "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" (Article VI, Clause 3). Politicians of both parties, and particularly Democrats, would be well-advised to steer clear of the issue of religion when examining Roberts.
DU largely does not agree with me, although some posters did point out that the situation was hardly unprecedented. The larger sentiment runs in this direction:
35. This has Rove all over it.And I don't know what this person wants to do, but she or he is sure anxious to get it done:
The announcement will distract the MSM away from NO for awhile. It gets the pictures off the screen, and it shows * doing something that Presidents are supposed to do.
71. we must NOT let this happen! . . . Bush is a liar, a thief, and . . .a murderer, not to mention an illegitimate president . . . he has no business nominating ANYONE to anything, particularly the Supreme Court . . . we need to get creative and stop this atrocity, or we'll be living with neo-conservatism for the next 40 years . . .It gets quite hot on Kos, with the typical Kossian illogic:
Here's my quick take - a vote is a vote. So Chief Justice or Associate Justice, Roberts is unacceptable. That said, now he is Rehnquist's replacement, not O'Connor's. This sounds stupid I know, but it is very important for framing.I am guessing that this is an attempt to shore up the "a moderate must be replaced by a moderate" spiel, which makes no sense. If the president has the right to appoint, one can guess that he will be appointing people who basically go along with his philosophy. The comments are pretty enjoyable:
We now have to, more than ever, reveal Roberts' true views - to fully demonstrate that Roberts' is Rehnquist's heir, not O'Connor's.
In short, Social Conservatives have gotten their nominee - his name is John Roberts. For replacing O'Connor, Bush must pick a Justice like O'Connor, not Scalia, Thomas or Rehnquist.
O'Connor is scum (4.00 / 3)Gee. If the "total scum" Bushites have a majority, why are they losing so many SC cases? And:
Rehnquist was scum, may he RIH
Scalia is scum
Thomas is scum
Kennedy is scum but wishes he wasn't
Roberts has to be pure Repug scum, otherwise he would not be on Bush's list.
Armando's idea that "Bush has to replace O'Connor with someone similar" is quaint, why would he attribute a conscience or anything but a thirst for total world domination to the smirking idiot Bush?
Don't treat Bushites as logical, reality driven people, they are total scum and will work to keep their majority of five utterly contemptible party hacks in the SCOTUS.
Continue impeaching until the Bushites are purged from our once great country.
Think of it (4.00 / 2)No. Maybe a few more Kossites, who appear to be a liberal brand of Cossacks, should read Tom Carter. Most Americans don't like pure factionalism, although they also hate genuinely corrupt politicians. There are always a few around, and I'm in favor of going after those. But here is my favorite comment:
as a public relations campaign. Sort of like the heavily ridiculed basement hearing on "The Downing Street Memo" followed by a march to the White House where Democrats were turned away at the gate.
If more of these "fake trials" begin under Democratic unity would the Media not start covering these events with a measure of respect? If Democratic leaders begin appearing on news shows and explain the situation of powerlessness, would the public embrace the filibuster as a toll against the oppressors?
I keep asking myself "What if the Democrats put an end to the truce in The Ethics Committee and just start calling Republicans on every crime against humanity?" Would they not while being ostracized by the Power Party, gain enormous respect from the people who will go to the polls in 2006?
Here is my take. I dont really care. I dont think the constitution of the United States or the Supreme Court will go unchanged for much longer. Our system is failing. It only ever worked for the wealthy and people are starting to see that. Plus its only been around for a few hundred years. That is hardly any real test of time. Let him nominate who he wants and they can pass all sorts of crazy laws that nobody listens to. Just another sign that our form of government is failing. Mabey Bush is doing us a favor by pushing the envelope and making the demise faster instead of some long drawn out process.....One is left wondering if the commenter doesn't know that it is Congress that passes laws, or just believes that the Supreme Court should pass laws. Over at DU yesterday there was considerable debate as to what the Chief Justice does.
Normal people have nothing to worry about.
You live by the sword, etc., etc.
I always love this sort of idiocy.
Do you realize that the US Government, of all the governments -- of any major nation on Earth (I exclude any small ones like, say, San Marino, which don't count for this) -- the US government is the OLDEST continuing government on the planet?
*Every* other nation's government (it it even WAS a nation in 1789) has changed radically in the interrim. Britain has gone from a pure monarchy to a parliamentary monarchy. France has had, what, a half dozen revolutions? Italy and Germany did not exist in even close to their current form. Spain has had at least one major revolution.
Mexico? Canada? Central/South America? China? Russia? Australia? India? Keep going. Find one which has had a continuing governmental system with no extensive changes for over 200 years!!
The Founding Fathers did something particularly **right** with our system. They created a stable and effective means for transfer of power and laid the reins in the hands of the people.
In 2000 we had a defacto Constitutional crisis on our hands, as a president was elected by a margin narrow enough to be swamped by the signal error.
Did we have a revolution? A coup-de-tete? No.
Because the ones in power knew that the US people would not stand for such an action, and throw whomever attempted it summarily out of office... so they settled it with political games.
The system rocks.
As it turns out, a democracy such as ours has enough flex to be adaptive and enough continuity to be tough.
SC&A. You guys should never have let the nuts out of the institutions! Oh - wait - that was the courts, right? Sorry.
Carl - Those who hold the conception of the world that you describe (that rules affect everyone equally, so every rule put into effect must be carefully considered) seem to be the the rational ones. The wild-eyed extremists everywhere believe in two sets of rules - one for themselves and another for the "wrongthinkers".
I think, as Nick B. puts it, that what the founders did particularly **right** with our system was to institute a set of boundary rules that ensured that passing laws would tend to affect everyone equally.
Off of the top of my head, Switzerland and Iceland have much older continuing goverments than ours. I am sure there are more, but those two jump to mind.
but your point is taken.
Switzerland has changed its government. Its current federal constitution, believe it or not, dates to 1999. The confederated constitution was set up in 1848 as a result of the political upheaval of that period in Europe.
In 1798 I think it fell to Napoleon, although I don't think Napoleonic forces ever occupied all of the cantons. I know after Napoleon six new cantons joined. Before 1848 it had a very reactionary, aristocratic form of government which dominated the cities and cantons. There was a bunch of religious strife. There was armed conflict at various times between the different camps. The constitution of 1848 was a compromise that provided considerable guarantees of freedoms and saw the end of active conflict. I think that was preceded by almost 20 years of war.
In my mind, the modern state of Switzerland begins in 1848 although it has had several constitutions since then. Its system of government is definitely not as old as ours. I believe the first woman got the right to vote in 1959 in Vaud.
Links to this post: