POTUS and SCOTUS
I was reading Colby Cosh’s headscratcher piece today, discussing various reasons people have for voting for one Presidential candidate or the other. One of these is the Supreme Court. The next President could appoint up to four new justices. It occurs to me that this could possibly be one of the really long-term effects from either guy, and as such deserves a pretty high priority on anybody’s pro/con list— possibly THE highest.
What say you? Any thoughts on who either guy would appoint? And beyond that, who they would appoint who could get past the confirmation process?
October 31st, 2004 at 10:16 pm
Democrat Senator Carl Levin filibustered the Sixth Circuit justice nominations by Bush because he was angry that his cousin’s wife did not get her judgeship. One very good one, Jeffrey Sutton, of Ohio, Bush’s brightest and best, finally made it after a year of wrangling, but others did not, including Arab-American Henry Saad of Michigan. I think it is very likely that the Supreme Court nominations will be tainted with all the same Democrat underhandedness as we see in the voter registration drives. Someone will find a pubic hair in somebody’s coke or something and there we’ll go with the usual bullshit. When it was all said and done, what was wrong with Robert Bork? Nothing, really.
October 31st, 2004 at 11:17 pm
I’m of course biased in this, but I suspect anyone nominated by a Democratic president is going to be far more likely to rule in favor of individualy liberties (yes, with the notable exception of the gun issue) than those nominated by a Republican president. On that basis, I’d prefer a Democratic president.
I would accept a Republican president for this purpose, but only if I were guaranteed a Democratic majority in the senate. (In fact, I prefer the Senate and the President to be different parties to prevent blatantly partisan candidates from getting approval.)
November 1st, 2004 at 1:29 am
Tgirsch, what individual liberties do you see a Democrat appointee supporting to a greater extent than a Republican appointee would? I see abortion, and just about nuttin’ else.
November 1st, 2004 at 2:36 pm
Xrlq:
Let’s see, the right to marry who I please, as a prominent recent example. Admittedly, the Democrats’ position on the issue isn’t great either, but it’s not as bad as the GOP position.
Democrats are also generally friendlier to privacy rights.
Also, this particular GOP president has come down on the wrong side of most due-process issues, IMO. I suspect candidates nominated by a Democratic president would be less friendly to vaugely defined “enemy combatant” rules that allow such due process protections to be subverted.
That’s just the few that spring to mind off the top of my head. I’m sure that, given time, I could think of more.
November 1st, 2004 at 2:59 pm
How about the right to hire and fire who you please, or the right to rent out an apartment to who you please?
November 1st, 2004 at 3:31 pm
Or the right to pay a wage both parties agree on, rent out an apartment for what it’s worth, etc. Even a “right to marry who you please” is phony. All it means is a “right” to circumvent the legitimate legislative process while re-writing the family code to accommodate one specific group. No judge would find a general “right” to redefine marriage to mean whatever any group of consenting adults might want. Besides, the only genuine right there is a right to BE with whoever you want, not a “right” to have someone else sanction it.
As to Democrats being friendlier to privacy rights, I’d like to see the proof. I remember all too well the Clinton years, when President Clinton and Vice President Internet pushed hard for backdoor encryption and the “Clipper” chip, while none other than John Ashcroft argued passionately against this gross invasion of one’s privacy. Also, while I generally support the Patriot Act, I should note that most of its controversial provisions were not new proposals at the time it was enacted, but rather, a warmed over, repackaged version of a law enforcement wish list the Clinton Administration had pushed unsuccessfully for years. And yes, I do blame both myself and my fellow Republicans for the fact that some of its key provisions were not enacted back then.
We’ll have to agree to differ over whether a Democrat President would (or should) have handled enemy combatants differently than Dubya did in the wake of 9-11. FWIW, FDR dealt with them much more harshly.
November 1st, 2004 at 8:27 pm
Xrlq / Thib:
See, now you’re moving from purely individual liberties (personal autonomy) into the area of commerce. How commerce is conducted has far wider effects than just to the people directly involved, particularly when you start getting into discrimination and unfair treatment.
Regulating commerce is not, in my estimation, even in the same ballpark as regulating personal activities and personal relationships.
Meanwhile, Xrlq, you do make some valid points about privacy rights; I should have said that Democrats are generally less hostile (rather than “friendlier”) to privacy rights. Neither party is very good about them, but in my estimation, the Republicans are worse.
November 1st, 2004 at 10:45 pm
I see. So marrying the person you want, under terms agreeable to the both of you, is a purely INDIVIDUAL liberty, but engaging in commerce with the person you want, under terms agreeable to the both of you, is not.
And holding people under “enemy combatant” rules is a violation of individual liberties, but restricting firearm ownership is not, because it has “far wider effects than just to the people directly involved.”
Bah.
November 1st, 2004 at 10:55 pm
Thib
Sigh. See, this is really simple: commerce affects everyone. Who I sleep affects, well, no one but who I sleep with. The “rights” you talk about are not roghts – -they are using the state to deny the abality of minorites of all kinds their abality to participate in public society. Color me unimpressed by an argument that wal-Mart should not be firced to sell to black people, for example. That “right” damages all of society and thus the state is justified in stepping in. The right to prvacy, however, the right to order your private life as you see fit is the core of liberty. With out that right, there are no other freedoms. When the state can reach into your home and twist your life to suit it, then you are not free. Period.
As for guns, what part of “well regulated” confuses you?
November 1st, 2004 at 11:12 pm
Thib:
Essentially, yes, but in the case of the commerce, it depends. Am I an individual selling my car, as a one-off deal? In that case, I could see an argument for allowing me to sell (or refuse to sell) to whomever I please. Once I start trying to make a business of selling cars, the game has changed, and it’s no longer about personal liberty. If I want to hire the neighbor kid to mow my lawn, once again, I can see the argument. When I decide I want to hire a bunch of kids to mow a bunch of lawns (and profit on the deal), it’s once again no longer about personal liberty. But you knew that, didn’t you?
Did I not already concede that guns were a notable exception to a liberal judge’s tendency to err on the side of personal liberty? Oh yeah, lookie there, I did. So what was your point in bringing it up again? Other than, perhaps, since you couldn’t think of any other legitimate examples of truly personal liberties being infringed by liberals, you had to repeat the one that had already been conceded.
November 1st, 2004 at 11:12 pm
Yeah, whatever you say Comrade.
November 2nd, 2004 at 12:03 am
Kevin:
You really might want to think twice about invoking the “damage to society” argument. It’s the same one the other side uses when opposing gay marriage. Also, please download a spell-checker or something before you post again. Have some pride, man.
I happen to think that private property rights, including firearm ownership, are the core of liberty. And since “well-regulated” simply means keeping your shots in the X-ring, I’d say I’m less confused than you. Go sell it somewhere else; we’re not buying.
Girsch:
Actually, no, I don’t “know that already.” Do you think the scale of an activity affects whether or not it’s the subject of individual liberty? As far as I’m concerned, it’s of no import, so long as no force or fraud is involved.
As for firearms, I happen to think that firearm ownership is a pretty damn important right, so I don’t consider someone who pooh-poohs it to be in favor of individual liberties, no matter what he thinks of the poor schmucks at Camp X-Ray.
November 2nd, 2004 at 5:34 am
Yes, I do, hence the “individual” part. As the scale grows, you move from individual liberties to group liberties. In any case, the constitution explicitly gives the Congress the power to regulate commerce.
November 2nd, 2004 at 11:45 am
Oh good grief. In the first place, it’s interstate commerce, and again, I don’t think regulate means what you think it means.
In the second place, whether I interact with one person or a thousand, I’m STILL an individual. Free speech is free speech, whether I’m talking to one person or a crowd. Free enterprise should be the same.
I don’t know what the hell you mean by “group liberties,” and I don’t really want to know. I’m an individualist; I don’t think groups have rights that their members don’t have. And again I should warn you: be careful what you wish for. A government empowered to enforce “group liberties” at the expense of an individual’s might someday target YOURS.
November 2nd, 2004 at 1:31 pm
So just to get you on the record, if you own a chain of stores, and you decide you don’t want to sell anything to black people, you should have the right to refuse to serve black people? By extension, that’s precisely what you’re arguing for.
November 2nd, 2004 at 1:41 pm
The part that causes it to nullify a clause it’s not even part of.
November 2nd, 2004 at 2:26 pm
Yes, I think if somebody is a racist bastard, it’s a free country and he has a right to be a racist bastard. Note that that does not mean he has the right to lynch people, or set fires on their property, etc. But he does have the right not to sell things to anybody he doesn’t want, because that’s HIS property.
That’s what individual liberty is about. It means other people have the right to do things you don’t like. Quite frankly, since you don’t seem to get it, I consider you just as culpable as the people on the “right” (for lack of a better word) who are opposed to whatever it is that you approve of.
Now go ahead and tell me that makes me a racist. I dare you.