Comments on: SCOTUS, McCain-style An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right Tue, 05 May 2015 20:25:17 +0000 hourly 1 By: runasim Tue, 01 Jul 2008 07:36:00 +0000 Underlying 'conservative' or 'liberal' courts are also different judicial and Constitutional philosophies. For example: is 'intent' to be discerned only by reconstructing conditions at the time of the writing of the Constitution,, or where the FF far sighted enough to realize conditions and society would change and they were attempting to set up a framework within which changes could be accomodated? Are rights limited to only those specifically named, or are rights limited only by specifiied restricions?

The FF were very diverse in their views, and yet they created a brilliant document.
The consevatives' inssitence that there is only one 'correct' way to read the Constitution dishonors their legacy.

A court that is better balanced than the current one would allow for more openness in deliberations, while a lack of diversity can cause calcification in thought processes.

iMore diversity might also make some partisans realize that an opinion is just an opinion, not some kind of ultimate truth.

By: kryon77 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 06:33:33 +0000 Remember, if Roe is overturned, abortion would be legal in most states, including the big ones: NY, CA, IL, FL, etc. Partial-birth abortion would be outlawed almost everywhere, because most Americans have an aversion to “Saw”-like grisly torture-murders.

But the point here is that the legal landscape would be quite different than some on the center-left & left suppose, I might be wrong on this – if so, I'm sure I'll be corrected – be even in 1972 when Roe came down, I think abortion was either legal or in the process of becoming legal in the big states NY and CA.

By: JSpencer Tue, 01 Jul 2008 02:58:42 +0000 To the extent that the SC is such a mirror image of the deep partisan divide in the US, why should anyone be convinced that a more “conservative” make-up would do anything to make the court any more supreme? Pardon me if I remain skeptical. In the absence of a court not ruled primarily by ideologies (as opposed to constitutional considerations), then I'd prefer to at least see a balance of ideologies represented.

By: Neocon Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:31:07 +0000 Roro80 and Rambie.

Abortion. If Roe v Wade were struck down abortion would become once again a states right issue where it belongs.

Death penalty. 64 percent of Americans believe in the validity of it.

Gun Control. It is protected under the 2nd amendment and would continue to be so.

Global warming? The supreme court is going to rule on global warming?

Free speech? Seems like the only ones wanting the fairness doctrine revisited is the Democrats.

Habeas Corpus. The courts ruled. The government will comply.

Torture. No supreme court is going to rule in favor of torture. Gimme a break.

Executive power? It fluctuates and has since George Washington. Its the nature of the 3rd branch of Government.

By: Rambie Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:10:06 +0000 Roro80, please don't feed the trolls.

McCain has been moving to “right” for years now. I used to think it was just to get on the GOP ticket for 2008 but lately it seems he's showing his true colors now.

By: roro80 Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:01:35 +0000 Neocon, uh, read the post again, maybe. Or just this paragraph:

And just think what a solid conservative majority, with or without Kennedy, would have to say about abortion (so long, Roe)… and the death penalty (Old Testament justice)… and gun control (none)… and the environment (global warming? what global warming?)… and free speech (the First Amendment is overrated)… and habeas corpus (so quaint, so passé)… and torture (bring it on!)… and executive power (Republican presidents are omnipotent gods)…

By: Neocon Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:31:57 +0000 And a conservative supreme court as opposed to a liberal supreme court would be bad how??