s2a
Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
This is a revivication of a thread I instigated back on 10/22/2007.
Since that date, indeed two justices did retire, and were replaced by President Obama’s nominations of Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomyor, two women (obviously) deemed by all conservative thinkers as being “liberal” in their legal perspectives. They replaced two retiring judges considered to reflect a similar moniker.
So, apologies for the pun, but "even steven".
However, what I wrote nearly 5 years ago applies nearly exactly again today. Another two, three, or even four justices may either retire or simply pass on in the coming four years. The duly elected President will nominate for Senate confirmation the justices that will replace the departing ones (note: it is very rare that a nominee does not see confirmation).
Whether or not you care much at all about either the gender. ethnicity, age, or qualifications of these prospective candidate justices, one thing is clear.
Within the next four years, the Supreme Court will hear cases and render verdicts upon our very basic civil liberties, rights, protections, and the laws that define them as passed by local, state, and federal legislatures.
From voter’s rights, to immigration, to marriage equality, to women’s heath issues of personal choice, to privacy laws both in your home and when online, using your phone or computer, and ever more efforts to reinforce the notions that “money is speech” and “corporations are people”.
The Supreme Court’s impact upon our most cherished and enduring personal freedoms and liberties will be put to the test at the lone and final say of those nine justices.
It is often said that “elections have consequences”, and they most certainly do. Fortunately, elections for President take place every four years, and untoward consequences may be stemmed by the electorate. Supreme Court decisions, and their consequences, last for decades, or much, much longer.
Most justices tend to favor the concept of “Stare Decisis” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent]. precedents previously established by earlier courts. This is in part due to deference in honoring the justices that came before, and in lending confirmation of the integrity of both the Supreme Court when ruling upon foundational matters of Constitutional interpretations as they apply to law.
More simply put, It’s kind of embarrassing to play ping-pong with the US Constitution every time the winds of change blow a bit…or some new kids show up on the Court.
However…and let’s be clear here. Justices are just as human as any of the rest of us, and even (or despite) their best personal efforts to rule impartially and without bias regarding their individualized philosophical ideals and hopes as they apply to law under the Constitution…well, as they say, there’s the rub.
In most general terms, justices identified as “liberal” tend to reflect the philosophy that the US Constitution is a “living” document, purposefully crafted by the founders to retain a nuanced and thoughtful flexibility in accommodation of changing times and challenges to freedom and civil liberties, in hopes of fulfilling the core principles upon which it is crafted…not the least of which is the term “equal justice for all”. All, meaning every citizen. Every citizen. Not “separate/different…but also mostly equal in most other cases…” Either we treat and deem each other as equals under law, or we choose to qualify “Constitutional rights” as focused and applied only to the select and special.
“Conservative “ justices typically self-identify as “Constructionists”, more rigid in their beliefs that the Constitution is essentially “perfect” as it was constructed and ratified at it’s inception, including those often nagging and highly interpretive first 10 Amendments (The “Bill of Rights”.
Besides no longer insisting that slaves or people of largely dark skins should be regarded as 3/5 of a person [Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution],largely again because of the 13th Amendment, many if not most Constructionists feel that 18th century realities need be reflected in the written laws and ideals of society today. As if that is what the “Founder’s Intended”.
At any rate…as I deem myself both an advocate of a free society that defines itself as such by expanding personal liberties whenever possible, instead of limiting separate rights to people I don’t know, don’t approve of, or just don’t look/think like me; and that we only deserve the rights we are willing to fight for against those that would deny us the same…
I encourage all of voting age and those eligible to cast a ballot this Nov, to think about what your senses of value, justice, and equality mean to you, and the consequences you may have to endure by doing nothing, or hoping to simply impose your own values (and not what we find in the Constitution) upon all that you may not love, know, or care to meet.
Believe me when I tell you, the next elected President may very well determine that course for the next fifty years, or longer. It’s your call.
[FWIW, I'm a middle-aged married white guy, unlikely to be directly or personally affected by any SCOTUS decisions that adversely affect my own rights and liberties. This ain't about me, it's about you and the generations to come, and how you wish to see liberty and justice defined in the next 50 years(.
Since that date, indeed two justices did retire, and were replaced by President Obama’s nominations of Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomyor, two women (obviously) deemed by all conservative thinkers as being “liberal” in their legal perspectives. They replaced two retiring judges considered to reflect a similar moniker.
So, apologies for the pun, but "even steven".
However, what I wrote nearly 5 years ago applies nearly exactly again today. Another two, three, or even four justices may either retire or simply pass on in the coming four years. The duly elected President will nominate for Senate confirmation the justices that will replace the departing ones (note: it is very rare that a nominee does not see confirmation).
Whether or not you care much at all about either the gender. ethnicity, age, or qualifications of these prospective candidate justices, one thing is clear.
Within the next four years, the Supreme Court will hear cases and render verdicts upon our very basic civil liberties, rights, protections, and the laws that define them as passed by local, state, and federal legislatures.
From voter’s rights, to immigration, to marriage equality, to women’s heath issues of personal choice, to privacy laws both in your home and when online, using your phone or computer, and ever more efforts to reinforce the notions that “money is speech” and “corporations are people”.
The Supreme Court’s impact upon our most cherished and enduring personal freedoms and liberties will be put to the test at the lone and final say of those nine justices.
It is often said that “elections have consequences”, and they most certainly do. Fortunately, elections for President take place every four years, and untoward consequences may be stemmed by the electorate. Supreme Court decisions, and their consequences, last for decades, or much, much longer.
Most justices tend to favor the concept of “Stare Decisis” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent]. precedents previously established by earlier courts. This is in part due to deference in honoring the justices that came before, and in lending confirmation of the integrity of both the Supreme Court when ruling upon foundational matters of Constitutional interpretations as they apply to law.
More simply put, It’s kind of embarrassing to play ping-pong with the US Constitution every time the winds of change blow a bit…or some new kids show up on the Court.
However…and let’s be clear here. Justices are just as human as any of the rest of us, and even (or despite) their best personal efforts to rule impartially and without bias regarding their individualized philosophical ideals and hopes as they apply to law under the Constitution…well, as they say, there’s the rub.
In most general terms, justices identified as “liberal” tend to reflect the philosophy that the US Constitution is a “living” document, purposefully crafted by the founders to retain a nuanced and thoughtful flexibility in accommodation of changing times and challenges to freedom and civil liberties, in hopes of fulfilling the core principles upon which it is crafted…not the least of which is the term “equal justice for all”. All, meaning every citizen. Every citizen. Not “separate/different…but also mostly equal in most other cases…” Either we treat and deem each other as equals under law, or we choose to qualify “Constitutional rights” as focused and applied only to the select and special.
“Conservative “ justices typically self-identify as “Constructionists”, more rigid in their beliefs that the Constitution is essentially “perfect” as it was constructed and ratified at it’s inception, including those often nagging and highly interpretive first 10 Amendments (The “Bill of Rights”
.Besides no longer insisting that slaves or people of largely dark skins should be regarded as 3/5 of a person [Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution],largely again because of the 13th Amendment, many if not most Constructionists feel that 18th century realities need be reflected in the written laws and ideals of society today. As if that is what the “Founder’s Intended”.
At any rate…as I deem myself both an advocate of a free society that defines itself as such by expanding personal liberties whenever possible, instead of limiting separate rights to people I don’t know, don’t approve of, or just don’t look/think like me; and that we only deserve the rights we are willing to fight for against those that would deny us the same…
I encourage all of voting age and those eligible to cast a ballot this Nov, to think about what your senses of value, justice, and equality mean to you, and the consequences you may have to endure by doing nothing, or hoping to simply impose your own values (and not what we find in the Constitution) upon all that you may not love, know, or care to meet.
Believe me when I tell you, the next elected President may very well determine that course for the next fifty years, or longer. It’s your call.
[FWIW, I'm a middle-aged married white guy, unlikely to be directly or personally affected by any SCOTUS decisions that adversely affect my own rights and liberties. This ain't about me, it's about you and the generations to come, and how you wish to see liberty and justice defined in the next 50 years(.
Last edited:
