Republican Richard Nixon appointed William Rehnquist to the Supreme Court. But he also appointed Harry Blackmun and Lewis Powell. Republican Gerald Ford appointed one of the more left-wing justices in recent years, John Paul Stevens. Republican Ronald Reagan appointed three Supreme Court justices. Just one, Antonin Scalia, is a conservative. Republican George H.W. Bush appointed two Supreme Court justices: liberal David Souter and conservative Clarence Thomas.

With Democrats controlling the White House less than one-third of the time since 1968, it's easy to understand how George W. Bush inherited a Supreme Court with seven of nine Republicans sitting on it. Why did he also inherit a court that leans way left?

George W. Bush has an opportunity to correct the mistakes of Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush Sr. Will he?

I predict that it will not be a white male.

I doubt George will make the mistake of appointing a liberal. What a mistake that'd be.

Right. So much better to fill it with right wing fundimentalists that honor literalist Biblical rhetoric over the constitution. Too bad their 'literal' interpretation is more like, "what we want it to mean.", and they don't give a shit about who else's views they trample. Like the recent nonsense with the ten commendments. Two completely different rulings over the same issue, which isn't about promoting religious equality, but promoting the fiction that the ten commandments, as interpretted by Bush's type, where the basis of the constitution. Only one problem, as someone pointed out in post on the subject, the constitution:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/atheistempire/message/37796

"The bottom line is that:
* Our laws directly contradict 4 commandments.
* Our laws ignore 3 of them.
* Our laws agree with 3, but that is a coincidence."

Yep, can't imagine him making the 'mistake' of puting someone moderate, never mind just *sane* into the position. :(

Kagehi, even if you disagree with the 10 Commandments ruling, that kind of case is so utterly unimportant when put in context with the truly egregious ones like the recent eminent domain case, Roe v. Wade, etc.

prediction: he will squander his historic opportunity to change not only the direction of the court but the cultural direction of the country. he will replace o'connor with gonzalez, a pro-choice judge and current attorney general, thus maintaining the 6-3 stand of the court on roe v. wade. he will replace rehnquist with a conservative.

he should appoint either priscilla owen or miguel estrada to replace o'connor, but he'll leave either of them for rehnquist's spot. george w. bush's lasting legacy will, for good or bad, be iraq. in the grand scheme of things i predict george w. bush will be a very short speed-bump on the road towards depravity and military and financial collapse for america. our country and our culture have already embraced death, pride, and selfishness.

In the grand scheme of things, I predict America will continue to prosper and continue to progress in living up to its ideals (this time as regards abortion and its denial of the right to life).

Want to make a bet?

It isn't 'unimportant' if it is part of an overall trend to promote fundie Christian ideals, at the expense of everyone else. Corruption and tyranny can happen two ways, either through a single violent replacement of those in power by someone worse, or through a slow, corrosibe washing away of freedom. Bush is someplace between the two. Where he can, he promotes obvious and blatent destruction of constitutional rights, in others, like this, he appoints people to chip away at other parts, until everything he doesn't like gets destroyed. So, forgive me if the ten commandment issue bothers me, especially given that its supposed 'basis' behind out law **is** the corner stone of the arguement that allows them to attack things like Roe vs. Wade in the first place.

I agree w/ Cassius Clay.

Brian, feel free to make a wager with me. (I look forward to seeing a Confederate lose again).

its supposed 'basis' behind out law **is** the corner stone of the arguement that allows them to attack things like Roe vs. Wade in the first place.

Kagehi, I don't jump for joy when the Commandments are place inside or outside a federal building (and those who protest their removal appear to be full-fledged wackaloons). However, you're wrong there. People attack Roe v. Wade because it's based on the false notion that there is a Constitutional "right to privacy" and that it explicitly denies the fundamental, unalienable right to life.

In the grand scheme of things, I predict America will continue to prosper and continue to progress in living up to its ideals (this time as regards abortion and its denial of the right to life).

Want to make a bet?
Posted by Ben Litchman at July 3, 2005 06:54 AM

i guarantee that bush will appoint a moderate to the bench. i will not have to eat my words. whether it's gonzalez or not, i'm 90% sure it will be gonzalez.

gonzalez is spanish for souter. like father like son. while i admire your optimism, i would like to point out that the power of the federal judiciary has increased exponentially over the past century and no legislative or executive efforts have been made to rein it in. as long as a group of 9 men and women can invalidate the will of the people with impunity and no way to stop it aside from impeachment, which is impossible to do, the liberal agenda will continue to be ramrodded through the courts. currently, there is no reasonable way to check and balance the supreme court.

in what way has our country been prospering? if you take the average income of the 1950's, and adjust for inflation, the average American in 2005 should be making over $50,000. currently the average worker makes approximately $33,000. America has lost a grip on its ownership of raw materials like steel and gas and china continues to rise economically while cutting into those markets. i don't think we're prospering; we're stagnant. how does the outsourcing of jobs and the massive trade deficits with china and others mean prosperity?

how are we living up to our ideals when we passively accept the wanton slaughter of 1.3 million of our nation's children each year? how are we living up to our ideals when the federal government can now sieze private land at their discretion, as long as it "benefits the majority"? i'm confused. please enlighten me.

i guarantee that bush will appoint a moderate to the bench. i will not have to eat my words.

My proposal was not about who Bush would appoint to the bench. It directly addressed your comment about the "grand scheme of things." You will eat your words about that, and we'll know for sure in a few decades.

in what way has our country been prospering?

As time goes on, luxuries which used to be affordable only to the very rich soon become commonplace among the masses. The great majority of people have computers in their homes, for instance -- something that would have been unheard of in 1990. This pattern will continue.

Trade deficits in isolation don't mean anything. It's a Buchananite myth. During each year of the Great Depression, we had a "favorable" balance of trade.

how are we living up to our ideals when we passively accept the wanton slaughter of 1.3 million of our nation's children each year?

As I just stated, this is the biggest moral crisis facing the nation. And abortion, like slavery and other evils, will become a tragic thing of the past. Here's an excerpt from an Ann Coulter column in January...

"We know it wasn't popular with actual Americans back then because 46 states had outlawed it in a once-common procedure known as "representative democracy." Reflect on the fact that among the things more popular than abortion even back in 1973 were white-guy afros, lime-green leisure suits and earth shoes.

In the intervening 32 years, abortion has only become less popular. People have seen sonograms of smiling fetuses, they've seen the mangled remains of aborted babies, they've heard the ghastly arguments from NARAL termagants, and they've seen untold women marking the birth dates of their terminated children with weeping and despair.

In a Los Angeles Times poll a few years ago, 57 percent of respondents said they believed abortion was "murder." Seventy-two percent of women and 58 percent of men said they thought abortion should be illegal after the first trimester."

how are we living up to our ideals when the federal government can now sieze private land at their discretion, as long as it "benefits the majority"?

That insane decision will be overturned, I'm sure, especially considering the fact that some citizens are ingeniously attempting to give one of the Justices a taste of his own medicine. That will certainly wake them up.