[BodoidearoLew]

Roberts replaced Rehnquist, and hardly a murmur was heard from the leftists. Some said it was because a conservative was replacing a conservative, and so the so-called "balance on the court" wasn't changed.

Now Alito is about to replace O'Connor, and the leftists tried, but barely laid a glove on him. Some said it was because a conservative was replacing a moderate, and the balance on the court wasn't changed... much.

Others, of course, said it was because the job of USSC Justice is to uphold the Constitution, and Roberts and Alito's record of doing that look almost flawless.

But what will happen next time? Suppose either Souter or Ginsburg retire, while the same makeup of the Senate and the Presidency exist? Both are quite old, both have had health problems, and a retirement would not come as a surprise for either.

And, both are extremely liberal judicial activists, who have voted many times to permit Federal activities that are clearly prohibited by the Constitution. Examples are censoring political speech before elections, racial discrimination in college admissions, and forcibly taking property from its rightful owners and turning it over to other private parties. Plus many more. Justices like that are the lifeline of the modern liberal agena - without them, many parts of the leftists' agenda would be found unconstitutional, and the Nanny State they have been building for nearly a hundred years, would be dismantled.

Will liberals simply fuss and fume as they have during the Alito hearings, before giving up with only a few token votes-against?

The battle for the courts, is the most important domestic battle of our time, excepting only the pursuit of terrorists and their supporters in the U.S. It took the liberals several generations to get judges onto the courts who would support their agenda against the clear dictates of the Supreme Law of the Land. And now nearly a generation of seesaw appointments have gone by, during which the judicial philosophy of the Court has moved inexorably toward original-constructionism and respect for the overall framework of the Constitution.

The comparative non-events of the Roberts and Alito hearings have demonstrated that the leftists have been trapped by their own tactics. As Ruth Ginsburg so determinedly repeated that she could not comment on issues that might come before her if she were confirmed, so have later nominees learned well: If you stay away from specific issues, Senators have little choice but to vote based on your record and merits. Republican Senators have had no problem doing exactly that, even voting almost unanimously for the clearly-leftist Ginsburg. But extremist Democrats have voted against Roberts, and will probably vote in greater (but still futile) numbers against Alito. But with the rising tide of respect for basic justice and aversion for the constant petty squalling of the Democrat leaders, support for the extremist liberals in Congress has been fading steadily, and it appears teir diminishing numbers will have little hope of confirming any more of the judicial activists they so desperately need to maintain their illusion of legality.

With the appointment of one or two more justices like Roberts and Alito to replace hardline leftist activists such as Souter or Ginsburg, the extremist Democrats' agenda may be tottering on its last legs. Will its adherents quietly fade into the dustbin of history as so many other leftist regimes have? Or will they put up an even nastier fight that they did against justices like Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas... and THEN fade into the dustbin of history?

[18holesin]

Your comments simply beg for a couple of questions:

1) What about Hariet Miers? It seems to me that you missed a small section of history in your attempt to prove "leftists" cannot put an end to a Supreme Court nomination.

2) Where are these extremist Democrats? There is not a single democrat in the limelight who comes anywhere near being an extremist. You see, the current conservative regime is so far to the right that a moderate by realistic standards is a far leftist by the current political standards.

3) How can you point at leftist embaracement under the current scrutiny of the Republican Party? Tom DeLay, Hariet Miers, Hurricane Katrina, George Bush, Wire Tapping, voter fraud, Florida 2000. The Republican party is the party that appears to be "tottering on its last legs" or "fad[ing] into the dustbin."

4)http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/12/scotus.gitmo/

The Bush administration pushed legislation through on Dec 30 that prohibited the USSC from hearing the case that a terror suspect filed about military tribunal. The legislation sends the case to a federal appeals court and limits the scope that the appeals court can consider on the court. I guess my question here is: what weakens the constitution more Roe v Wade or stripping cases from the only body that ever volunteered to champion the Constitution?

Regards,
Chris Hanson

[QXCharles]

We are in a constitutional crisis.

[JacomoR]

A side note: "Extremist" is an anti-concept. It tries to group together by nonessentials a man who is motivated by, say, justice and does not sway his hand from being just, ever, and a murderous dictator who sacrifices everyone to his stupidity.

I'll leave it to the audience to figure out who profits by the grouping of these two into a single concept.

[i32I7qyH]

...2) Where are these extremist Democrats? There is not a single democrat in the limelight who comes anywhere near being an extremist. You see, the current conservative regime is so far to the right that a moderate by realistic standards is a far leftist by the current political standards....

Teddy Kennedy, Kohl, Reid, Schumer, just to name a few hard-left idealogues.

[M1iFiNmC]

4)http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/12/scotus.gitmo/

The Bush administration pushed legislation through on Dec 30 that prohibited the USSC from hearing the case that a terror suspect filed about military tribunal. The legislation sends the case to a federal appeals court and limits the scope that the appeals court can consider on the court. I guess my question here is: what weakens the constitution more Roe v Wade or stripping cases from the only body that ever volunteered to champion the Constitution?

Regards,
Chris Hanson

No, they didn't. Re-read the article, and you will find that the Supreme Court has granted cert (meaning they have accepted the case). The government has argued that the new law means the Supreme Court cannot hear the case until after the tribunal rules, but the Court has not accepted this reasoning.

Matt

[klnbgqr]

What about Hariet Miers? It seems to me that you missed a small section of history in your attempt to prove "leftists" cannot put an end to a Supreme Court nomination.

Ahem... Harriet Miers' withdrew her name from consideration after the more conservative advocates protested her lack of a demonstrable record. The leftists had little to do with it. Nice try.

(Did someone mention "missing a small section of history"?)

Where are these extremist Democrats? Right about now, I believe they are in the various washrooms of the Capitol building, banging their heads against the walls. Or in certain cases, getting stinking drunk, again. Why, would you like to join them?

The Republican party is the party that appears to be "tottering on its last legs" or "fad[ing] into the dustbin." Please go on believing exactly that. It will insure that you and your leftist cohorts do nothing to cure where the real problem lies: in the leadership (or lack thereof) and failed ideology of today's Democrat party.

Keep up the good work, Demmies!

[GreesyBeeva]

Hopefully if Stevens retires, we'll get Luttig or Kozinski as a replacement. Or maybe Janice Rogers Brown.

[insightmike]

I think any liberal judge will stay alive/in office out of sheer perversity until Bush is out of the whitehouse.

[PetraCromlich]

If Hillary runs in '08, the Republicans will have another four years, minimum, after Bush is gone.

[borasolit]

Correction: If Hillary wins the PRIMARY the republicans will probably have another 4-8 years. I won't be voting for her in the primary because I don't think she can win the general.

(for the record, I'd rather have Mccain appointing judges than Bush)

[toopyimport]

McCain will select strict constructionists. Which means that instead of Alito and Roberts, we get Luttig, Kuzinski, or Brown.

Liberals will be even more upset, because such justices will strike down more laws that Congress passes.

No justice has voted to strike down more laws than Clarence Thomas. No justice has voted to strike down fewer than Stephen Breyer.

[ulw7A8Po]

No justice has voted to strike down more laws than Clarence Thomas. No justice has voted to strike down fewer than Stephen Breyer.

Where did you get that stat? I'd LOVE to know!

.

[Anaerbguagree]

Please go on believing exactly that. It will insure that you and your leftist cohorts do nothing to cure where the real problem lies: in the leadership (or lack thereof) and failed ideology of today's Democrat party. FOR THE LAST TIME:

I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT!!!!

[g4YthYXx]

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/opinion/06gewirtz.html&OP=3738f60bQ2F-JQ5Dy-Q20Q23Q3A81Q23Q23mE-EaaQ2A-aX-an-Q23HQ5E.Q5EQ23.-andQ5DJQ5E1mAQ3D!mO3

We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The tally for all the justices appears below.

Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %