Comments on: 5-4 Decisions Show What’s At Stake

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 18:50:41 +0000

Go to CHurhc Liberals

By: dsquared

dsquared — Sat, 02 Jul 2005 07:33:11 +0000

O’Connor was the pivotal vote in Tennessee v Lane, a 5-4 case in which she ruled in favor of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act as applied to the fundamental right of “access to the courts”

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1667.ZS.html

This nomination could put a justice on the court who would eviscerate that decision. O’Connor’s retirement means that the Americans with Disabilities Act is hanging on by a thread in the federal courts.

By: Susan

Susan — Sat, 02 Jul 2005 06:09:54 +0000

5-4 in favor of a constitutional ammendment allowing the President a third term.

Future looks grim, dont it?

votetoimpeach.org

By: Hesiod

Hesiod — Fri, 01 Jul 2005 23:42:29 +0000

Excuse me, but that Cromartie case absolutely screwed the Democrats in the south.

The Republicans used to to carve out majority/minority distrcits and ghettoize Democratic voters.

If that decision were reversed, it would force the Republicans to farm out Democratic voters more evenly, and make more districts in the south more competitive.

By: Alyssa

Alyssa — Fri, 01 Jul 2005 21:05:15 +0000

Andros, I agree with you… The best liberals can hope for now is that Bush will appoint a moderate and not some Scalia or something. –Prado might be a good possibility: he’s traditionally had high bipartisan approval, has a history of making independent & balanced decisions. He’d be acceptable to Democrats and would prevent Rove from shrieking about Democrats blocking good potential appointees. I think we need to push for more moderate candidates in order to prevent the SC from swinging, scarily, even further to the right…

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:16:39 +0000

“What about the cases where she was against something that the author would have preferred her to be for?”

Do you think there’s any chance Cheney will nominate someone who will vote the other way on those issues?

By: mcd

mcd — Fri, 01 Jul 2005 18:25:33 +0000

a more likely senario . . .

Corporate America’s Pocket

By: Darth Filibustrous

Darth Filibustrous — Fri, 01 Jul 2005 17:57:52 +0000

Get your battle gears on… make obstructionism your middle name…

By: Andros

Andros — Fri, 01 Jul 2005 17:26:13 +0000

Alan is right. O’Connor is a conservative by our standards. But, we’re not dealing from a position of strength now. Bush can and will nominate someone more conservative than O’Connor, and he will have at least another one appointment to the SC (after Renquist leaves). This development right now is a fortunate event for Bush because it’ll take the focus away from his other failings. Rove will try to pain the Dems as obstructionists.

And, this will be an orchestrated effort from the right. They had lots of time to prepare. The fundies and the far right will be loud in pushing for an extremely conservative judge…. then Bush will try to show that he’s reasonable by appointing a less extreme judge, but a very consrvative one….

It’s going to be a long hot summer…. But, we knew hell was coming since Nov. 3rd, 2004.

By: Zwack

Zwack — Fri, 01 Jul 2005 17:23:03 +0000

Hand picking 5-4 decisions where O’Connor was on the 5 side only shows some of the things she stood for. What about the cases where she was against something that the author would have preferred her to be for?

By: Alan

Alan — Fri, 01 Jul 2005 16:50:08 +0000

Sandra O’Connor was also the source of the quote: “this is terrible” when it looked like Gore was pulling ahead in the election count. Then went on to vote the majority in Bush vs. Gore, possibly the worst SCOTUS ruling ever. Certainly within the top five.

By: nuclear renegade

nuclear renegade — Fri, 01 Jul 2005 16:46:37 +0000

IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m sure George Bush is peeing himself with excitement.