The Future of the Supreme Court
Hey everybody,
Yeah, so that plan to study before class didn’t work out too well…LOL.
I was thinkin’ about everything that’s going on with the Senate confirmation hearings for Roberts as the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and was wondering what everyone’s feelings on the situation were.
I’ll say, I was glad to hear that Bush selected him, purely for the reason that it still keeps O’Connor on the court until Bush names a new nominee for her seat on the bench. I’m also glad that it’s worked out as it has. I mean Rehinquest was about as conservative as you can get…so by placing another conservative on the bench in his place won’t drastically alter the dynamics of the court. I am, however, concerned if Bush names another conservative nominee to O’Connor’s seat. She was often the swing-voter and the deciding factor on many key cases involving such controversies as abortion, the death penalty, and equal protection.
Bush is in a position–with confirmation from the Senate, of course–to drastically alter the dynamics of the Supreme Court for the next several decades. Roberts is in his 50s…he could sit on the bench for a long time. And Bush will most likely pick a middle-aged, conservative as his nominee for O’Connor as well…it would be the politically correct thing for him to do, from the standpoint of his party.
Both the Senate and House leaders are republicans, and he’s a republican president. Why not seed the third power of government with people who hold/share your ideals and values as well? I mean, which of us wouldn’t do the same thing in his position? You want people who feel/think as you do to be in power. It helps keep your political agenda in play.
Obviously, and if you couldn’t tell by now, I’m not conservative. I am conservative on some manners, but I would definitely say I’m more liberal.
So yeah, what do you guys and girls think about this? Sorry, this turned out to be a lot longer of a post than I had originally intended.
scott said:
Sep 16, 05 at 6:45 pmI know you’re not going to like this, but imo, this is the best part of having Bush as president. In fact, it may be the only good thing about having him there.
As many of you know, my biggest political concerns are abortion and (maybe) marriage. With the dynamic of the court changing, there’s a decent chance of getting some of that stuff taken care of.
I believe in this stuff so strongly that it would be worth having 8 years of Bush if everything works out the way I think it should.
jared said:
Sep 16, 05 at 10:21 pmTo me, that’s a selfish view. In what way does abortion or gay marriage affect you? It simply doesn’t–not in the least. You’re imposing your “morals” on those around you.
Am I against abortion? Yes, but I would also never force somebody not to have one, with the exception of my own daughter, somebody on whom I have the right to impose my morals (at least until she’s out of the house, etc). Admittedly, abortions are too easy and can happen much too late in a pregnancy. That’s a different issue, though.
On the topic of gay marriage, what’s the downside to it? I don’t want to hear anything about the sanctity of marriage, until we try to outlaw Vegas weddings. What, you’re morally opposed to gays? Aren’t you also morally opposed to cheap, drunk Vegas weddings? Promiscuity? Lying? Why don’t we outlaw that stuff? Why don’t we outlaw unmarried sex? Why don’t we outlaw lying?
This is pretty much what I’m talking about. In a democracy, you’ve got to respect the views of the minority.
With the way this country is going, I don’t think anything could have been worth Bush being president. Like I said 8 years ago, if Bush had done a good job as president, I would admit that I had been wrong. But I haven’t been. The government’s slow reaction to Katrina is further proof of that. Yes, local government was unprepared as anybody else. But accountability starts at the top.
scott said:
Sep 17, 05 at 10:07 amI don’t think I’m up for another one of our long arguments/discussions. Nick wanted to know how I felt, so I told him. There’s pretty much no way we’re going to agree on this stuff anyway.
nick said:
Sep 17, 05 at 12:52 pmScott, you’re right, I don’t like it, but I can respect your opinions and beliefs even though I don’t agree with them.
I do oppose abortions, but I also condone them in certain circumstances. If a girl has sex and she’s not smart enough to tell the guy to wear a condom or she doesn’t use some type of prophalaxysis then that’s her own fault and she should be prepared to face the consequences. Devil’s advocate, a woman shouldn’t have to be responsible for circumstances out of her control (i.e. rape). If she didn’t want it to happen, why should the consequences be forced upon her?
You may still find it morally wrong to abort a baby even in those circumstances, and that’s fine, it’s your choice. But you aren’t the woman who was raped and told she was pregnant. You aren’t going through the post-psychological trauma and posttraumatic stress.
I’ve seen rape victims at the hospital. I’ve seen what they go through. They were already violated once, then they’re practically violated again in the name of medicine and justice to obtain evidence and determine if they are “medically ok.”
Now, on the topic of gay marriage. I don’t share your views, Scott. I’m more inclined to agree with what Jared said. I do want to say this though. Why is it that the leaders of a nation that prides itself on separation of church and state, still allow a book written more than 1,000 years ago dictate law in this land?
Constitutionally, Americans are given freedoms of expression and religion from the 1st amendment. In the 14th amendment, the U.S. Constitution forbids states from denying persons equal protection of the laws.
Some history on the matter…
In the 1960s, a federal appeals court in Georgia struck down the state sodomy law on the grounds that it violated the constitutional right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, (1965)). See also, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 92 S.Ct. 1029, (1972).
The case went to the Supreme Court in 1986, and in a 5-4 decision, the court overturned the ruling and upheld the Georgia sodomy law (Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 106 S.Ct. 2841, (1986)). Justice White wrote the majority opinion saying the Constitution did not confer “a fundamental right to homosexuals to engage in acts of consensual sodomy.”
Fast forward 17 years later to 2003, the Supreme court overruled its original decision in Bowers v. Hardwick in a 6-3 decision in the case of Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 123 S.Ct. 2472, (2003). Also in that case, the Supreme Court struck down Texas’ anti-sodomy law on which Lawrence was arrested for. Justice Kennedy wrote that there is “no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.”
The court reversed its earlier decision in the Bowers case saying it violated the Due Process clause, guaranteed by the 14th amendment. Justice O’Connor then wrote a separate note in agreement but citing the Texas law was unconstitutional as it violated the Equal Protection clause because it was rected only against homosexuals.
Now, read what Justice Kennedy wrote: “no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.”
No legitimate state interest…huh, sounds like he’s saying that the government needs to get the hell out of people’s business.
When getting married, two people who love each other vow to spend their lives together. That’s what marriage is all about; at least it’s what I’ve been taught. The vows they take show that. So, why can’t it be granted to two people of the same sex? Why does the state which wants separation from the church still allow it to hold the influence the way it does?
I’ll tell you why, because in this day and age, people are still so bigoted and small-minded not to see that what two other people do has no ill effect on you.
This isn’t how I wanted to do this at all, because I felt I owed each of you who read this more, but maybe it’ll make a difference, I really don’t know.
Jared already knows, Scott probably knows and as for the rest, you’ve probably suspected–I’m gay. I’m sorry to be telling you like this, I would have preferred to tell you in person, but with what I brought up, it seemed like as good a time as any.
It makes life complicated that’s for damn sure. It’s hard to live in St. Louis and then come back to Herrin…purely because of the atmosphere. It doesn’t take a genius to know that St. Louis is more open and accepting than a rural town like Herrin.
I’ve grown up a lot since moving here. I’ve become a lot more comfortable with who I am and with what I want. I want everything you all want. I want to get married; I want to spend my life with someone I love. And it kills me that my government continues to deny me that right.
I’ve been in a weird place in regards to relationships. The man I love lives in Chicago. He moved back there (his home) during our senior year of high school. I still see him, and we talk everyday. He refers to me as his husband to his friends who ask about me. And it’s nice to have someone feel that way about me. But then sometimes, I really think about it and it hurts that some bureaucrats still have the power to dictate over my personal life in that way.
Not to sound like a whiny brat, but it’s just not fair. I’m a good person, upstanding, don’t break the rules, so why am I treated like a lower class citizen? Why am I denied those rights? Who has the balls to think they can tell me I don’t have the right to get married?
Jared pointed out that you can run of to Vegas and get married. How is that morally right? To get married drunk and on a whim? A marriage that won’t last, because they’ll sober up and think “what the hell did we do last night?”
Is that what marriage is supposed to be? They say if I marry the man I love it will have be a detriment to heterosexual marriages. I say that’s complete bullshit.
The detriment to marriages are people who run off to Vegas like Britney Spears and get married and have it annulled the next day because she was “just having a good time.”
Ok, so this turned out to be a lot bigger of a response than I originally intended. Sorry for being so long-winded, but I when something affects you personally it’s hard to stay silent about it.