Dave,

Interesting topic and an important one I think.

In my opinion the focus on Judge Roberts' "lack of struggle" is a bit confusing to me. Essentially, the supposition is that Roberts has done too well; he 'zipped' through law school, won too many cases, hasn't been through divorce or adversity. If you use a persons life experiences as a litmus test for whether they would make a good public servant, you're opening a whole ball of wax. Why not use the same test on a guy like Ted Kennedy? He never worked a day in his life, was born with millions of dollars that he didn't earn, was handed law school and a legacy of government. Why is it that Ted deserves to serve in what is basically a life-long position? Too many factors to consider.

I guess I'm not sure who is in a place to judge anothers challenges? I have no idea what he had to deal with in his life all that I know is that Judge Roberts life was/is different than mine. I don't really see that as a problem.

I suspect much of the opposition to Roberts was his personal view on abortion...but that view is a legitimate view. Although I am pro-choice, I believe Roe v. Wade was bad law and that this issue should have been decided by state legislatures rather than in the Federal court system. I think a good judge can put his/her personal views to the side and judge a case on its legal merits.

As far as who should be the next nominee and whether they should be a woman or a minority. I believe that that is a non-issue. It should be that person deemed most qualified, who shows a deep understanding of the Constitution and who is will to use the Constitution to judge the validity of a case based on what is written there, rather than what his/her personal views are.

THe idea that the Constitution means what it says, to me is the litmus test for a judge. If a judge believes that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" then what they are saying is that the Constitution means what the want it to mean. To me that is WAY too much power for any branch of the government to hold. What that means is that they can trump the power of all of the other branches of government. Especially since a judge cannot be held accountable by the electorate, they are in for life if they want to be.

Scott you said, "Although I am pro-choice, I believe Roe v. Wade was bad law and that this issue should have been decided by state legislatures rather than in the Federal court system."

That is also what the slave-holders and later the segregationists said. That is what conservatives say when they object to civil rights (for all Americans) - they say at least let us limit the rights of citizens in our own states if we choose to (for technical constitutional reasons of course).

It is not whether you are pro-choice. It is whether you are pro-privacy and pro-civil rights for all Americans.

Conservatives have a psychologically need to limit the freedom of others, to force others to conform to the "correct" lifestyle - as prescribed by those in power. When you claim that it's a states rights issue - you are just justifying your need to control others' lives.

Finally, if you agree that states should have the right to decide - then you agree that abortion could not be an immoral act. (Otherwise no state should have the right to allow it.)

Therefore, you are saying that it's OK (for state governments) to limit the rights of people who are committing no immoral act.

Your probelem is not states rights. You just can't handle the idea that people would be allowed to make these highly personal decisions for themselves.

Hi Dave,

A very interesting topic indeed. You have outlined your case very well, like a competent and true law man. Kudos to you.

The ideal person, in my view, to be appointed for confirmation by the Senate Judiciary Committee, should be a moderate and one who would espouse the values and expectations of the main-stream rather those of the extreme. The racial or ethnic background, or gender, of the nominee should not be a very important factor, especially if we are going to analyze and assess their qualifications and worthiness for the High Court.

But who is President Bush likely to appoint? I am not sure! It is possible that he will seek out a candidate who shares views more akin to Republican and right-wing traditions and preferences.

Should a woman or a minority be selected, he or she must have a background that supports civil rights and equality for all in America. Moreover, he or she must operate within the parameters and framework of the US Constitution.

As usual, it will be a gruelling process for the candidate where their whole life will be subjected to a "litmus test", and perhaps, just perhaps, the SJC might get it right.

Regards,

Ron Saywack.

Not true uranius. You pervert the argument. You confuse the meanings moral and legal. What is legal is merely the floor of mimnimally accepted behavior. What is moral is a personally held belief. For example many consider drinking, prostituion, gambling or gluttony to be immoral. The law, however, has taken different stances based on safety, public welfare, etc.

As for Roe specifically, there are many problems with any reasonable person taking a modern look at the case. First, please explain to me how abortion prohibition has a reaonable nexus to a right to privacy. Second, look at the decision and tell me that the science on which the decision is based is still relevant today. Third, can you, with a straight face, say that there is no difference between using a condom and getting an abbortion -- that they are both functional equivalent means of preventing pregnancy (I think most pro-abortion voters would acknowledge that there is at least something "fishy" about the procedure). These are three hard questions that have nothing to do with the "when does life begin" question.

There are at least as many problems with any potential overturning of Roe. I always wonder why anti-abortion activists aren't beefing up the adoption system and toughening financial burdens on would- be fathers. And if life begins at conception, why is there always a cave out "exept in the case of incest and rape?" Its not like the unborn fetus had anything to do with the crime. The biggest problem with an unwanted pregnancy is that the consequences are not evenly distributed. If you want to outlaw abortion, you need a system in place that provides a reasonable support network, financial assistance, and reassuance that any child given for adoption will be provided for. Or how about a law that castrates rapists or at least puts them away for life. This is clearly not the case today.

What this says about a potential court nominee, I do not know. I would hate to pay lip service to diversity by just appointing a woman or a hispanic for the sake of numbers. I think it is a fallacy to believe that abortion is a "woman's issue" or that women would believe any particulary way on the issue because of their sex. I would prefer that Bush appoint a moderate justace that isn't a strict anything -- someone in the mold of O'Connor.

Uranius,

You make some very good points.

However, my belief surrounding states rights is built on the idea that government that is smaller and closer to the people can be more reactive to the needs and desires of people. The original idea of the states was that they were loosely joined for trade and mutual defense. That they would be an experiment in democracy and the states with the best policies would be the most successful and therefore other states that were less successful would model the more successful states.

Roe v. Wade was bad law (IMHO) because it discovered rights in the Constitution that were not specifically there. The Fed. Constitutions rights were meant to be listed and then the States rights could be broad.

Segregation and slavery were blatant disregard for the Constitutions equal protections clause and so clearly unconstitutional because it did not apply laws to all people equally.

"Conservatives have a psychologically need to limit the freedom of others, to force others to conform to the "correct" lifestyle - as prescribed by those in power. When you claim that it's a states rights issue - you are just justifying your need to control others' lives."

Well said and I agree. Conservatives tend to talk alot about personal freedom when it comes to money. But they are damn sure going to tell you what you can and cannot do with your genitalia.

I DO believe that women need to ultimately make the choice concerning reproduction. But I value a small government that can be changed if it becomes too oppressive. And I believe that when the Federal government starts to 'find' rights in the Constitution that it is step closer to tyranny. The ability for a woman to choose abortion should be argued at the State level in my opinion, although temporarily it would probably lead to some illegal abortion, in the long run I believe that most people would elect officials that would support the majority belief in the protection of reproductive privacy and rights.

Peace,
Scott.

I pretty much agree with Ron. I'd like to see a true judge nominated. Someone who is able to separate their own views from the outcome and judge objectively.

It's not asking much right? :)

I want a "true judge" appointed to the bench. But I am not realistic about such a possibility. Do you thing the right evangelical groups are going to let go an opportunity just like that. I am skeptical. Under these circumstances, I would settle for anyone who is left of Justice Rehnquist.

It's never a problem if a judge holds personal beliefs (we all do)...it's only a problem if he/she can't seperate them from the law.

Peace,
Scott.

Scott, I agree. But there are some like Scalia who combine both. So it is always better to have someone moderate. In that case, even if his personal beliefs come into the way of the judgement, we will be safe.

From the Washington Post: "many inside the White House believe whomever Bush picks will face such strong resistance that it has had the effect of liberating the president to go with the candidate he feels most comfortable with, even if that person is a white male."

I think it's unlikely that the President will nominate anybody who will have a difficult time being confirmed. The press likes to hype these things up in hopes that they'll get another Bork because that was so much fun for them (Watergate Redux). Just like every president since Nixon, every judge nominated since Bork has to put up with the 'got ya' game.

Of course, if you're looking for a person who is not from a privledge background and had to work hard to achieve and reach this place in history then he or she is probably a conservative. ;)

Personally, I wish the President would do something fun, like nominate John McCain to the high court. That would be a great move, entertaining for years and also keep him from being Hillary's VP.

Alan Dershowitz makes an interesting point. When the US Constitution was written up, the life expectancy of an average American was 40 years. Now it is almost 80. I doubt whether the framers of the consititution really meant for Supreme court appointees to serve such long terms when they proposed "lifetime terms". With Bush seeking to appoint relatively young candidates to the SC, we will be stuck with his choices for 35 years or more. It's time they started talking about setting term limits for SC appointees.

Yes, term-limits has become something to be seriously considered by the law-makers in Washington. Term limits have been debated at lenght by astute, clever, practical and prescient people all over the US for quite some time now ... for the sake of justice, fairness, pragmatism and common sense. But, the issue seems to invariably get sidetracked by parisanship, extenuating and/or other distracting circumstances.

I strongly support term limits for Supreme Court justices and, conversely, strongly reject term limits for the US Presidency. In a true Platonic democracy, the people's choice for president must always be respected and allowed, and never denied, which, effectively, is what A-22 does. If that were the case today, Bill Clinton, or someone else, may still be the US president, and not the bumbling, stumbling embarrassing "bozo" currently occupying the Oval Office.

The 22nd Amendment was unquestionably a Huge Mistake and blantant defiance of, and blow to, democracy. The US Constitution MUST be quickly repealed and restored to the way it was originally intended by the prudent founding fathers. It is simple: if the elecorate tire of their president, they can always boot him out at the next election, or sooner?

Additionally, "recall" of the Presedency should also be adopted by the Congress which would efectively solve the Lame-Duck aspect of a presidency and hold all presidents accountable for their policies and actions until his/her last day in office.

From the AP: "President Bush hinted on Monday that his next nominee for the Supreme Court would be a woman or a minority, saying that 'diversity is one of the strengths of the country'"