[kjanyeaz1]

In reading about the recent Supreme Court nomination it occurred to me that conservatives always fear that their nominations will move to the left ...i.e. Justices Kennedy, O'Connor and Souter ...more than liberals ever fear that their nominations will move to the right.

What could be the reason for this? It seems strange. Hmmm....

Maybe a life-long appointment insulated from politics allows judges to truly interpret the original intent of the Constitution, as it should be applied today.

[JakeBarkings]

[QUOTE=Foglai] In reading about the recent Supreme Court nomination it occurred to me that conservatives always fear that their nominations will move to the left ...i.e. Justices Kennedy, O'Connor and Souter ...more than liberals ever fear that their nominations will move to the right.

What could be the reason for this? It seems strange. Hmmm.... You make an interesting point here. However, Scalia has proven to be more conservative than was expected at the time - at least from what I have observed. He was overwhelmingly approved; I wonder if the Dems who voted for him regret it?


Maybe a life-long appointment insulated from politics allows judges to truly interpret the original intent of the Constitution, as it should be applied today. But they are not insulated from politics. They have far, far too much power. Essentially, they run the country. This is an imbalance that will not be corrected any time soon.

[Feflyinvelf]

I mean..I know this will be shot down. I don't think that conservatism really has much to do with the rule of law most times. Especially religious based social conservatism. It is emotional and therefore it often gets left behind on the court.

[Galsteinbok]

I mean..I know this will be shot down. I don't think that conservatism really has much to do with the rule of law most times. Especially religious based social conservatism. It is emotional and therefore it often gets left behind on the court.

I will pass on this...........

[b3JOkwXL]

Maybe because they are supposed to be interpreting the constitution and the constitution is on the left.

[d1Bc25UP]

Maybe because they are supposed to be interpreting the constitution and the constitution is on the left.

Oh....I will pass on this as well.......

[MasTaBlau]

This is something I heard on NPR.

Once you are on the Supreme Court, you never have to please anyone again except yourself. You become a member of the Washington party circuit, and all the best hosts are Liberals, most of the really clever influential people you meet are Liberals, and the Supreme Court reporter for the NYT is after all writing the first draft of history. The legal scholars you meet now tend to be from Harvard and Yale, not the Muncy School of Law and Tractor Mechanics, So you are removed from the conservative influence of politics and exposed to the Liberal influence of the great centers of learning.
And you begin to see yourself in the history books, and the people who write history are for the most part liberals, so a Liberal gets a better shot in the history books than a conservative.
It's only human to want to fit in, to be liked and respected by your peers. For a Supreme Court Judge, that means fitting in to a mostly liberal world, and being liked and respected by people who are mostly Liberal.
Bottom line, would you rather party with Ted Kennedy or Karl Rove?

[mralabama]

They don't really move to the left or the right. They just rule in ways that neither side really expects, but which is consistent with their judicial philosophy.

Raich and Kelo outraged liberals, but it was entirely consistent with the liberal judicial philosophy that government has expansive powers. The liberal judges on the court, however much I disagree with their philosophy, are not going to change things on a case-by-case basis to get the result that those who supported them during confirmation may want.

Same goes for right-wing judges. In the end, most will find a right to privacy in the Constitution, thus upholding abortion rights. Even if they do eventually figure a way around this, their commitment to states' rights will prevent any federal legislation on the issue. Therefore, pro-lifers think these judges have moved to the left, when in actuality they have done no such thing. They have merely upheld the very conservative view that government's powers are few and defined.

Finally, there's precedent, which most judges are reluctant to overturn except in cases where doing so can be justified by their judicial philosophy. For example, Rehnquist believed that a single 5-4 decision was not binding at all, but several 7-2 decisions would be. Thomas is the only judge who does not believe in precedence. Scalia is very deferential to precedence, Kennedy and O'Connor even more so. So since most precedent nowadays is left-wing from the Democrats' domination of the judiciary from the 30s to the 70s, you'll find a lot of conservative judges voting in ways that respect precedence.

[DoctorTDent]

QUOTE=Tim]

You make an interesting point here. However, Scalia has proven to be more conservative than was expected at the time - at least from what I have observed. He was overwhelmingly approved; I wonder if the Dems who voted for him regret it?

I'm sure they do, but at the time the liberals' majority wasn't in jeopardy. In the past it was harder to oppose qualified nominees. Today, the division has gone beyond politics ...it's become cultural.

But they are not insulated from politics. They have far, far too much power. Essentially, they run the country. This is an imbalance that will not be corrected any time soon. Well ... our politics are currently quite volatile. SC judges being removed from the money-mad election process does account for something.

The power you cite, I believe, is all in the eyes of the beholder. Conservatives call liberal judges activists despite the fact that conservative judges have voted to overturn congressional laws more often than have liberal judges. That, I believe, is legislating from the bench.

However, that said, I want our judiciary active. Without them, with only majority rule, we never would have had civil rights, etc.

[CGH1KZzy]

I mean..I know this will be shot down. I don't think that conservatism really has much to do with the rule of law most times. Especially religious based social conservatism. It is emotional and therefore it often gets left behind on the court.

Good point!

[TouccuraLar]

This is something I heard on NPR.

Once you are on the Supreme Court, you never have to please anyone again except yourself. You become a member of the Washington party circuit, and all the best hosts are Liberals, most of the really clever influential people you meet are Liberals, and the Supreme Court reporter for the NYT is after all writing the first draft of history. The legal scholars you meet now tend to be from Harvard and Yale, not the Muncy School of Law and Tractor Mechanics, So you are removed from the conservative influence of politics and exposed to the Liberal influence of the great centers of learning.
And you begin to see yourself in the history books, and the people who write history are for the most part liberals, so a Liberal gets a better shot in the history books than a conservative.
It's only human to want to fit in, to be liked and respected by your peers. For a Supreme Court Judge, that means fitting in to a mostly liberal world, and being liked and respected by people who are mostly Liberal.
Bottom line, would you rather party with Ted Kennedy or Karl Rove?

You really heard this on NPR? I find that hard to believe. I would hope that our SC justices want to do more than fit in ...though I agree, I hear Teddy is a great guy to have a couple of beers with ...and frankly Rove ...eh ...another iced-tea-er ...

[Heliosprime]

I will pass on this...........

I won't. I think the statement was dead on. Conservatism is old school thats why its can be called regressive and not progressive.

[Unergerah]

They don't really move to the left or the right. They just rule in ways that neither side really expects, but which is consistent with their judicial philosophy.

Raich and Kelo outraged liberals, but it was entirely consistent with the liberal judicial philosophy that government has expansive powers. The liberal judges on the court, however much I disagree with their philosophy, are not going to change things on a case-by-case basis to get the result that those who supported them during confirmation may want.

Same goes for right-wing judges. In the end, most will find a right to privacy in the Constitution, thus upholding abortion rights. Even if they do eventually figure a way around this, their commitment to states' rights will prevent any federal legislation on the issue. Therefore, pro-lifers think these judges have moved to the left, when in actuality they have done no such thing. They have merely upheld the very conservative view that government's powers are few and defined.

Finally, there's precedent, which most judges are reluctant to overturn except in cases where doing so can be justified by their judicial philosophy. For example, Rehnquist believed that a single 5-4 decision was not binding at all, but several 7-2 decisions would be. Thomas is the only judge who does not believe in precedence. Scalia is very deferential to precedence, Kennedy and O'Connor even more so. So since most precedent nowadays is left-wing from the Democrats' domination of the judiciary from the 30s to the 70s, you'll find a lot of conservative judges voting in ways that respect precedence.

Good post ...I agree with most of what you say.

I'm relatively liberal and I don't actually fear conservatives on the SC very much anymore. I think most (qualified) conservative SC justices will vote to restrain and restrict government...(maybe not big business – but that’s another issue) .. which as you say has the sum affect of preserving the more liberal rulings of the recent past.

My question though is ...how can the conservatives really move this country to the right if the courts are deferential to precedent?

BTW …I'm starting to think that the Democrats opposing Alito may be wasted energy ...

[Proodustommor]

Conservative judges will move the nation back to a literal interpretation of the Constitution mainly through increments, although some cases may create opportunities to make new precedents. No court is ever going to declare Social security unconstitutional, but the courts may start to restrain the federal government from interfering with state prerogratives and may start to more narrowly define interstate commerce. There is no binding precedent for the court to allow Congress to regulate and legislate on everything, so there's still plenty of room for a conservative court to limit the powers of the federal government.

As far as what the Religious Right wants, forget it. The only real battlegrounds left are outside their agenda, although favorable rulings on states' rights could give the most of what they really want. The 2nd amendment is still up in the air, as is the commerce clause. There's also the constitutionality of certain kinds of campaign finance reform. The ruling on McCain-Feingold was too narrow, recent, and vague to be binding precedent.

To me, those are the really important issues. I want a strict constructionist court that will limit the power and reach of the federal government and I think we're slowly moving towards that. If we can get a good replacement for Stevens, we'll be close to where we need to be. Breyer and Ginsburg are an atrocity that can't leave the court soon enough in my opinion. I've rarely heard the word "Constitution" pass their lips except to denigrate the literalist approach. Sounds to me like they considered their oath to be meaningless.

[Irravepem]

Conservative judges will move the nation back to a literal interpretation of the Constitution mainly through increments, although some cases may create opportunities to make new precedents. No court is ever going to declare Social security unconstitutional, but the courts may start to restrain the federal government from interfering with state prerogratives and may start to more narrowly define interstate commerce. There is no binding precedent for the court to allow Congress to regulate and legislate on everything, so there's still plenty of room for a conservative court to limit the powers of the federal government.

As far as what the Religious Right wants, forget it. The only real battlegrounds left are outside their agenda, although favorable rulings on states' rights could give the most of what they really want. The 2nd amendment is still up in the air, as is the commerce clause. There's also the constitutionality of certain kinds of campaign finance reform. The ruling on McCain-Feingold was too narrow, recent, and vague to be binding precedent.

To me, those are the really important issues. I want a strict constructionist court that will limit the power and reach of the federal government and I think we're slowly moving towards that. If we can get a good replacement for Stevens, we'll be close to where we need to be. Breyer and Ginsburg are an atrocity that can't leave the court soon enough in my opinion. I've rarely heard the word "Constitution" pass their lips except to denigrate the literalist approach. Sounds to me like they considered their oath to be meaningless.

You make valid points ...but to some extent doesn't limiting the power of the federal government allow states' governments (and/or local governments) to also over reach? I mean, you must agree that some of the rulings of the last 50 years eliminating such things as "seperate, but equal" would not likely have happened on the state or local levels without some SC intervention?

[emily]

In reading about the recent Supreme Court nomination it occurred to me that conservatives always fear that their nominations will move to the left ...i.e. Justices Kennedy, O'Connor and Souter ...more than liberals ever fear that their nominations will move to the right.

What could be the reason for this? It seems strange. Hmmm....

Maybe a life-long appointment insulated from politics allows judges to truly interpret the original intent of the Constitution, as it should be applied today.

The reason why conservatives fear judges moving to the left. Is that we have seen many liberal judges legislate from the bench. Meaning re-writing existing laws in order to effect their own personal opinion, & not the law. We don't want that. Nor should democrats. We saw this happen in the Florida Supreme court in the election year of 2000. This court was actually re-writing election law. That is why the U.S. supreme court had to step in & stop them. As we see they could have in effect, turned the outcome of a Presidential election. As we have learned Al Gore never won the count for the state of Florida. Those votes have been counted at least 5 times & he has never won a count.

Other judges have imposed other critical things to this nation. We need judges who will follow the law, not write the law. And this is what conservatives fear.

[cucceevevaind]

The federal government is supposed to exercise the powers it does have. Enforcing the 14th amendment is one of them. Brown v. Board of Education was a good example of why precedence should not be held sacred when the past decisions clearly conflict with the plain meaning of the Constitution.

State and local governments are less likely to overreach in ways that the citizens are powerless to change. Especially for small states, the federal government is too controlling, and there's little they can do about it. When there's 50 states, if one overreaches, you can leave. It's much harder when the federal government is doing it. The best argument against liberals' love of a strong federal government is that quite often people like George Bush get control of it.

[BariGrootrego]

The reason why conservatives fear judges moving to the left. Is that we have seen many liberal judges legislate from the bench. Meaning re-writing existing laws in order to effect their own personal opinion, & not the law. We don't want that. Nor should democrats. We saw this happen in the Florida Supreme court in the election year of 2000. This court was actually re-writing election law. That is why the U.S. supreme court had to step in & stop them. As we see they could have in effect, turned the outcome of a Presidential election. As we have learned Al Gore never won the count for the state of Florida. Those votes have been counted at least 5 times & he has never won a count.

Other judges have imposed other critical things to this nation. We need judges who will follow the law, not write the law. And this is what conservatives fear.

Slavery, Male Only Suffrage, and Separate But Equal were also the laws of the land for a very long time ...how should they have been interpreted?

[bashansasasasa]

You are making an argument against taking precedence seriously, since overturning many of the more neanderthalish laws required the breaking of over a century of precedence.

[Goseciwx]

You are making an argument against taking precedence seriously, since overturning many of the more neanderthalish laws required the breaking of over a century of precedence.

You're right. Like many political discussions, it's a fine line between our personal perceptions of what is right and what is ...fair.