Rehnquist out tomorrow?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It was poorly decided and needlessly poisoned the abortion debate.

So instead of overturning it, couldn't they reaffirm it with better reasoning? The right to abortion is a good thing, even if it's based on poor reasoning.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Kos said he'd make an announcement between 10 and 11 today, and its past that now by an hour.

Why the hell would you turn to Kos for anything, especially information on the plans of a conservative justice?

Kos got the information from other sources, you know. Most notably Robert Novak. As I said in the first post, Kos was just relaying the Washington "buzz."

Kos was also the first to scoop the O'Connor resignation. It has a pretty good track record on such things. But it's good to see your bias won't get in the way of your making a fool of yourself.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Generally, when the constitution/law says one thing, and they do something else.

The problem is in determining what the Constitution or law says . Sometimes reading textually and reading intent will lead you in different directions among other problems (such as vagueness of provisions).

Interestingly, I read something where the conservative members of the Supreme Court were FAR more likely to vote to strike down a law than the liberal members... and that is another defintion of activist .

As for Roe, I don't think it'll be overturned. If there are two vacancies, I see Bush appointing (successfully) someone like McConnell, who disagrees with it, but will not go against the precedent.

A Democrat friend of mine wants to see it get struck down, because she believes the Republicans will never win a national election in her lifetime after that vote.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
So instead of overturning it, couldn't they reaffirm it with better reasoning? The right to abortion is a good thing, even if it's based on poor reasoning.

Of course if Roe v. Wade were overturned it wouldn't immediately outlaw abortion nationwide. It'll just permit states to decide the issue individually.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
So instead of overturning it, couldn't they reaffirm it with better reasoning? The right to abortion is a good thing, even if it's based on poor reasoning.

The only reasoning there is for abortion rights is a right to privacy or a 'penumbra' of rights flowing from the Bill of Rights.

Some states have a right to privacy, so, of course, they'd have to keep the right to abortion after a potential overrulling of it. The other states would have to make a decision.

[OzzyKP]

You don't need to have a specifically identified right to privacy (imho) to have a right to an abortion (assuming the courts or legislatures ignore the rights of the fetus). The Ninth Amendment should be all that is required.

But *sigh* I know the courts never use that one, and go looking in other amendments to try and find evidence of some new right they can create instead of recognizing the fact that ALL rights exist and are protected unless otherwise noted. That is another faulty thing about Roe v. Wade. They should have just based it more strongly on Amendment 9. (acknowledging the rights of the fetus would have made the decision better too, heh)

[Imran Siddiqui]

instead of recognizing the fact that ALL rights exist and are protected unless otherwise noted.

Yeah, because when the court recognizes a 'right to healthcare' all Hell would break loose .

That's the problem with the 9th Amendment. Which rights and based on what time period?

However, a number of legal scholars seem to argue that the 9th Amendment was to assauge fears from states that the delimitation of rights within a Bill of Rights would mean those would be the exhaustive Rights throughout the republic, meaning that State granting of rights would be deemed invalid (the 10th only deals with powers, not rights which may have been granted previous).

This fits with the Supreme Court jurisprudence, where the 9th Amendment was FIRST referenced in Griswold v. Connecticut, in the 1960s.

There is also an corrollary argument that the 9th Amendment is to remind Congress that they are subject to very limited powers (similar to what I've stated above). James Madison addressed the 9th Amendment to Congress by stating:

"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution."

It was to prevent people from thinking those rights not assigned where under Congress' power to legislate at will.

[Drake Tungsten]

So has Rehnquist retired yet? Or was Kos as accurate as he usually is?

[SpencerH]

Rehnquist has said that he isnt retiring.

[Kuciwalker]

He's probably waiting for O'Connor's successor to get through. There's no way he'll last much longer on the job anyway.

[Ramo]

He has no reason to do that, since O'Connor isn't stepping down until a replacement is confirmed.

I think he still wants to be the longest serving CJ.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
He has no reason to do that, since O'Connor isn't stepping down until a replacement is confirmed.

You mean except for not presenting the Senate with two simulaneous nomination battles?

[Ramo]

Why would he care? If anything, simultaneous nomination battles would facilitate a compromise, and thus avoid the filibuster.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
Why would he care?

Because he wants the thing to proceed smoothly? Because he only wants so much controversy over the court at a time?

[Ramo]

You noticed there was a second sentence, right?