Will Rehnquist resign and who will take his place?

[RogerRabbit]

Will Rehnquist resign and who will take his place?

Maybe Justices Antonin Scalia will become the top SC Justice...

With two spots potentially open who shall be nominated?

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/08/retirement.rumors.ap/index.html

Even AVN cares:

http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=232974

 

[someone]

Although Richard Posner never seems to get mentioned as a potential candidate, I think he would be an interesting one. He has taken a couple of questionable positions on “moral issues” (I’m thinking of this justice is wealth maximization stuff, which I think even he has more or less abandoned due to lack of support). However, I don't think a Judge has to agree me on everything to be a good candidate . In general, I think that his writings on law are excellent pieces of scholarly research. I think that he would make an interesting contribution to the court. However, as I say, he never seems to get mentioned.

For those not familar with him, here is a very breif bio http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/posner-r/

 

[RogerRabbit]

An interesting candidate.

Op/ Ed:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/10/AR2005071000786.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/07/10/national/w115110D94.DTL

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/politics/12101855.htm

 

[RogerRabbit]

Regardless of the spelling he has shaped the direction
of the American legal system for better or worse.
Its not for me to judge. I practice the law. He shaped
what I do. I respect him but don't necessarily agree
with him. His influence will last long after his retirement.
I salute him.
Don

He has been a beacon to many!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/13/supremecourt/main708859.shtml


(CBS/AP) William H. Rehnquist, chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, who has cancer, was hospitalized overnight for fever, a spokeswoman said Wednesday.

Rehnquist, taken to the hospital Tuesday night, "was admitted for observation and tests," Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said.

Rehnquist, 80 and ill with thyroid cancer, has been tracked in recent days by journalists awaiting word that he may retire. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 75, announced this month that she would be leaving the nine-member court, which is final arbiter of whether U.S. laws are acceptable under the Constitution.

He been coming to the court daily until Wednesday. Court officials, questioned about his absence, revealed that he was in Arlington Hospital outside Washington.

Confirmation of the hospitalization followed unusual comings and goings at Rehnquist's suburban Virginia town home. A court police officer made several trips to the house, leaving each time with various personal items. The officer first carried out Rehnquist's distinctive cane and a shirt. Later, he brought out shoes and pants.

It was the second time in less than four months that Rehnquist was taken to the hospital by ambulance. In March, he was taken with breathing problems.

There has been much speculation that Rehnquist might retire soon and create a second vacancy on the bench.

On Tuesday, President Bush conferred with four top Democratic and Republican senators Tuesday about candidates to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Conner on the U.S. Supreme Court.

The senators emerged from the meeting saying they discussed names of possible nominees with Mr. Bush but would not say who they are, reports CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller.

"He didn't give us any names," Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said.

 

[Vietor]

If, as Sen. Reid said, "He gave us no names", are we to assume that the names discussed were provided to the president by the people with whom he was meeting? In my opinion, Sen. Reid is exactly what one would logically expect from a Nevada politican.

It is unfortunate that Chief Justice Rehnquist has not retired prior to Justice O'Connor. The selection of his successor might very make the selection of her's much less problematic. If Thomas or Scalia is elevated to Chief Justice, the president would get two additional selections. I agree that the selections should be made from the best lawyers in the country, judging from all accomplishments, judicial and otherwise. Among this group, there are many who have the necessary judicial temperment and regard for the Constitution as it exists, not as someone might like it to be. The Court should not be a uber-legislature. It is an exciting time to be a lawyer.

 

[langeweile]

There is alot of talk about who will replace Rehnquist. Thomas and Scalia are the names being tossed around.
The darkhorse in my opinion is Souter. In a recent report on NPR it seems that he has quiet some influence and power on the court.

I find it a little pretentious that the Democrats believe that they should be consulted.
While I agree it would be much better to find a candidate that both sides can agree on, the fact remains that the people have given GWB the mandate to be the president.
It was known for a long time that this might come up.

As much as I don't want ideology to be the deciding factor..I think it will be. i don't want the court to shift too far to the right, but neither do i want it shifting to the left.
My preference would be a guy that is a constitutionalist and interprets law in that manner.

 

[Asterix]

As much as I don't want ideology to be the deciding factor..I think it will be. i don't want the court to shift too far to the right, but neither do i want it shifting to the left.

Oh, please. The later is likely to happen when? The court has so steadily shifted to the right in the last three decades that those now called "liberals" would at best have been considered just right of center back then. If Rhenquist retires before October, very likely, Bush will be able to have his cake and eat it too. That is, appoint Gonzalez, and a hard core conservative as associate justices, and then elevate Scalia to chief justice. With Stevens getting on, George will likely get a third chance as well.

 

[Truncador]

I sure hope Scalia makes it to CJ. He is exactly the sort of man who could raise American jurisprudence back to its former heights. His stance on the 2nd Amendment alone is evidence enough.

 

[Asterix]

And what heights would those be? Mid to late 19th Century?

 

[TOVisitor]

One definition of "judicial activism"

From: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/o...774080327&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

July 6, 2005
So Who Are the Activists?
By PAUL GEWIRTZ and CHAD GOLDER

WHEN Democrats or Republicans seek to criticize judges or judicial nominees, they often resort to the same language. They say that the judge is "activist." But the word "activist" is rarely defined. Often it simply means that the judge makes decisions with which the critic disagrees.

In order to move beyond this labeling game, we've identified one reasonably objective and quantifiable measure of a judge's activism, and we've used it to assess the records of the justices on the current Supreme Court.

Here is the question we asked: How often has each justice voted to strike down a law passed by Congress?

Declaring an act of Congress unconstitutional is the boldest thing a judge can do. That's because Congress, as an elected legislative body representing the entire nation, makes decisions that can be presumed to possess a high degree of democratic legitimacy. In an 1867 decision, the Supreme Court itself described striking down Congressional legislation as an act "of great delicacy, and only to be performed where the repugnancy is clear." Until 1991, the court struck down an average of about one Congressional statute every two years. Between 1791 and 1858, only two such invalidations occurred.

<snip>

Since the Supreme Court assumed its current composition in 1994, by our count it has upheld or struck down 64 Congressional provisions. ... We examined the court's decisions in these cases and looked at how each justice voted, regardless of whether he or she concurred with the majority or dissented.

The tally for all the justices appears below.

Thomas 65.6 %
Kennedy 64.0 %
Scalia 56.2 %
Rehnquist 46.8 %
O’Connor 46.7 %
Souter 42.1 %
Stevens 39.3 %
Ginsburg 39.0 %
Breyer 28.1 %

Thomas, Kennedy, Scalia, Rehnquist .... not exactly the people the right wants to finger as judicial activists.

 

[Truncador]

And what heights would those be? Mid to late 19th Century?

We can only dream.

 

[TOVisitor]

And what heights would those be? Mid to late 19th Century?

Naw, I think that truncy has Torquemada more in mind.

http://www.bartleby.com/65/to/TorquemaT.html

 

[Truncador]

Or this guy:

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/B/blackstone/blackstone.htm

 

[Asterix]

We can only dream.

Swell. Only in my dream you get to feel what it's like to be on the receiving end of a decision like Dred Scott.

 

[Truncador]

Dred Scott.

Cheap shot.

 

[Asterix]

Cheap shot.

Really? Why exactly? The Supreme Court throughout most of the 19th Century and into the early 20th Century lagged far behind the direction of society in finally recognizing the legal equality of all citizens. Even the then very liberal Supreme Court of 1942 decided unanimously to intern the Japanese, a decision many of them regreted. The Court has traditionally been a back-up to the powers that be. The Warren Court of the 50's and 60's was an aberration.

 

[Truncador]

I'll give activist "jurisprudence" some credit when it finally recognizes the inherent illegality of murdering pre-birth infants (except where the life of the mother is manifestly endangered) and the inherent monstrosity of the doctrine that such slaughter is a privileged private right. Until that happens, neither they nor their supporters have any business lecturing others about equality, since they no less than the slaveholder arbitrarily divide humanity into human subjects of equal rights and non-human chattel and objects of the same barbarian right of patria potestas that underwrites slavery .

 

[Asterix]

All this from a man who sees nothing wrong with carpet bombing Arabia, where they have many actual infants, not just the "pre-birth" kind.

 

[Truncador]

All this from a man who sees nothing wrong with carpet bombing Arabia, where they have many actual infants, not just the "pre-birth" kind.

But the military policies I favour are predicated on the right of the State to wage war for the preservation of itself and its members, and not that Arabs aren't human, or that that we own them.

 

[Asterix]

But the military policies I favour are predicated on the right of the State to wage war for the preservation of itself and its members...

You and I both know this rationale has been used by every aggressor in history to justify eradicating a people they perceived as a "threat". Let's just say we have a different interpretation of murder, and leave it at that.