[Ettiominiw]

Well, I agree that it will be the Mother of all Battles, since the leftists' agenda depends absolutely on leftist judicial activists on the Court ignoring the Constitution and permitting the unconstitutional parts of their agenda to stand. That has been the procedure since the 1930s or earlier, and has continued to this day. Without such permissive justices, the huge expansion of Federal power since that time, probably wouldn't have happened.

I dispute some of the details in the article. The authors refer to four conservative justices and four liberal ones. The issue is not that the latter are liberal. It is that they violate the Constitution and allow illegal activities to go on. If a "conservative" justice were to vote that Congress can't impose an income tax on people, I'd be just as upset at his example of "conservative judicial activism" as I am at the "liberal" justices' numerous examples.

Be that as it may, our leftist politicians are definitely on the ropes, and another law-abiding judicial appointment could literally finish them off. We might wind up with a Supreme Court that rules 5-4 that the Fed has no business running a retirement-insurance progam (Social Security), no business dictating workplace conditions (bye-bye OSHA), etc, and that such programs must be run by the states if they are run by any government. They would be constitutionally correct to do so. Much pain would result, of course, since the liberals have so thoroughly hooked the country on such programs that coming off them "cold turkey" would be highly unpleasant.

The author quotes someone who speculates that Stevens will retire next, and even says that Stevens WANTS to be replaced by a Republican president like GWB. I'll need to see a WHOLE lot more evidence supporting this, before I believe it.

But the next Court pick, will indeed be the Mother of all Battles... because the desperate leftists will be literally fighting for their political lives, with nothing left to lose. And, it is looking more and more like this coming M.O.A.B. will have the same outcome as that other, earlier M.O.A.B. predicted by another big-government advocate in the early 1990s.

We can only hope...!

---------------------------------

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...351.shtml?s=lh

Next Court Pick: Mother of All Battles

Jason Barnes and Jim Meyers
Thursday, Feb. 2, 2006

Now that the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito has given the Supreme Court another conservative voice, forces are gearing up for what could be the battle of all battles – over the next appointment to the high court.

Speculation is that Justice John Paul Stevens, the court's most liberal member, will retire in the near future, possibly as soon as this year.

The appointment of a conservative replacement would definitely push the court solidly to the right – and likely touch off a furious fight from Democrats.

An analysis published in the Wall Street Journal found that conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed on court decisions 92.4 percent of the time. Stevens agreed with Scalia-Thomas on those 787 cases only 55.2 percent of the time, the lowest percentage of any justice. The score marks Stevens as more liberal than former ACLU counsel Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

As presently constituted, the Supreme Court is balanced, with four liberals (Ginsburg, Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer) and four conservatives (Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts). Anthony Kennedy defies a label, and thus becomes the swing vote on many issues.

The confirmation of a conservative to replace Stevens thus would give conservatives a clear majority on the court and have a far-reaching effect on future Court decisions.

Stevens has not made any formal announcement regarding his retirement, nor is he known to be in poor health. But he is 85 years old, and rumor has it that he hopes to have his replacement named by a Republican president.

"The buzz in Washington is that Stevens was appointed by a Republican president and he considers himself one that plans to retire under a Republican president," Gary Marx, executive director of the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, told NewsMax.

"After seeing the type of highly qualified nominees that the president has chosen in Roberts and Alito, I would think that would give him a lot of confidence that the president's not just picking ideologues to go up there, but he's picking careful jurists that understand their role as justices."

So Washington insiders say the court's current term could very well be Stevens' last.

Despite being nominated by a Republican president, Gerald Ford, Stevens is the court's most liberal justice. He is a reliable vote in favor of abortion and gay rights and against federalism and property rights.

He even authored the court's recent dalliance with unabashed collectivism in Kelo v. New London. His opinion upheld the constitutionality of a local government's decision to take land from lower middle-class residents and give it to a development company under the power of eminent domain. The decision sparked outrage across the country.

The stakes in replacing Stevens with a conservative in the relatively near future could not be higher.

Roger Pilon, vice president of legal affairs at the libertarian Cato Institute, told NewsMax that all the "big issues" would be on the table, including federalism, property rights, affirmative action and abortion.

But the nomination of a conservative replacement would surely produce "fireworks," Pilon predicted.

"Without question, there would be a filibuster, and then there would be the challenge proposed by the constitutional or nuclear option – depending upon your perspective."

Marx, however, was not convinced a filibuster would be a sure thing. First, he said, Democrats have to resolve an intra-party squabble over judicial strategy.

"Their current strategy of smear and fear tactics has clearly not worked and has been a disaster," he noted.

"But the liberal left-wing may look at the situation and say we don't have a better option than to continue down this track that not only loses us judicial confirmations but also lowers our public perception in an important election year."

It is questionable whether Democrats could rally the 40 votes necessary to uphold a filibuster.

The late and spectacularly unsuccessful filibuster led by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., against Alito could set a precedent for future nominations.

Pilon and Marx do find common ground in their view of past Democratic strategies.

"I reject the premise that the court should have an ideological balance," said Pilon. "This has been put forward by the Democrats as a working premise to continue their imposition of an ideological litmus test on Republican nominees."

In the meantime, observers will be waiting to see how the new "Roberts-Alito" court rules on several major issues.

Campaign finance reform, partial birth abortion and affirmative action have all been upheld by narrow 5 to 4 decisions by the court. The justice Alito replaced, Sandra Day O'Connor, voted with the majority in each case.

(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

[Smeaphvalialm]

It's still going to be a very long road back to sanity.

[dubballey]

It's still going to be a very long road back to sanity.

Yep. It took the leftists seventy-plus years to build up government to the size we have now, and infuse the amount of socialism that our government practices. We won't get rid of it overnight.