Three Hours Until…

Will President Bush leave a positive mark on the Supreme Court? Or will his pick be compromising and spineless? I can think of nothing better than another Scalia, but will politics trump conviction? We’ll find out at 9:00 EST tonight. The positive impact of the President’s nominee will undoubtedly be in inverse proportion to the shrillness of the Democrats’ response. But no matter how “moderate” the nominee, does anyone really expect the Kennedy and Pelosi-type Democrats (is there any other kind?) to allow the President to pick anyone without a drawn-out and bitter fight? We’ll have the answers to those questions in the next few months.

I consider this decision to be more important than anything else in these four years (except, perhaps, another Supreme Court nomination).

UPDATE: President Bush has nominated Judge John G. Roberts for the Supreme Court. I don’t know anything about him, except, it’s got to be good if Dick Durbin says, “The president had an opportunity to unite the country with his Supreme Court nomination, to nominate an individual in the image of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Instead, by putting forward John Roberts’ name, President Bush has chosen a more controversial nominee and guaranteed a more controversial confirmation process.” Bring it.



5 thoughts on “Three Hours Until…

  1. I’m not sure Roberts is someone to be excited about. Apparently he’s a strict constructionist, which is good, but according to Fred Barnes at The Weekly Standard Roberts would probably not vote to get rid of Roe v. Wade.

  2. If Roberts becomes a member of SCOTUS he couldn’t vote to get rid of Roe v. Wade unless a case came before the Court that raised the issue of the constitutionality of abortion. It is more likely that a case would involve the question of further restrictions on abortion.

    As long as judicial “precedent”, other than the Constitution, becomes essentially canon once made, it is difficult for it to be overturned.

    Science has the same problem, but experimental evidence can eventually overturn the most established scientific precedents (paradigms). I don’t know what the legal system has that would act in the same way.

  3. He may not be the answer to unConstitutional Roe, but I don’t think he will do further harm by using his position to legislate, rather than interpret.

    I did hear that his wife was a former president of Feminists for Life.

    And there’s always the fact that Democrats, for the most part, don’t like him!


  4. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that in the coming decade or so there will be a challenge to Roe that the Supreme Court might look at, so I think his position on that question may become important.

    The Democrats don’t seem so upset. I haven’t heard of any of them labeling Roberts an extremist.

  5. Ah, but they’re trying hard to make sure he states his position on abortion loud and clear. Not his position on how he’d rule, but HIS OWN FREAKIN’ POSITION. Not that I’d want them to be different, but I guarantee that as soon as he does say something firm one way or the other, someone’s going to be upset. I hope it’s not me.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s