"The Court has changed significantly since it decided School Comm. of Boston in 1968," John Paul Stevens whined in his dissent in yesterday's Parents v. Seattle School District. "It was then more faithful to Brown and more respectful of our precedent than it is today. It is my firm conviction that no Member of the Court that I joined in 1975 would have agreed with today’s decision." Thank God it's 2007 and not 1975. It's called progress.
With any luck, Stevens will leave the bench in 2007, and Bush will pack the Court with another Roberts or Alito. If that happened, the long-term positive effects of the Bush presidency would probably rival if not surpass those of Reagan. Reagan, after all, gave us O'Conner and Kennedy in addition to Scalia.
The way Bush has been going, he'll probably try Harriet Miers on us again.
The new Bush motto: If at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking til' you do suck seed.
With the courts, Ralph, Bush probably already surpasses Reagan. But with everything else, he falls way short. Bush has had one of the most disastrous foreign policies in American history; Reagan, one of the most successful. Reagan slashed the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent; Bush, from 40 percent to 36 percent. Reagan largely curbed the RATE of growth in domestic spending; Bush--with a Republican Congress--has increased spending more than any president since LBJ. It's also the case, too, that the mere precedent of Reagan helps anyone who follows. In other words, it's a more conservative country and subsequent politicians need not trailblaze but instead can walk easier down the trails already blazed.
Dan,
I agree with everything you say. Nevertheless, when I count the evils that could be cured by a Court that actually rules according to the Constitution, I think that the curing of those evils will outweigh the negative effects of the Bush presidency to such a degree, that his legacy will be better than Reagan's. Let me qualify: I do not think that Bush is even close to as good a president as Raegan. My point has more to do with the overgrown power of the Court than anything else. At the top of my list is Roe v. Wade. The effect of overturning Roe either by giving the issue to the States or making abortion a violation of the 14th Amendment would dramatically offset all of Bush's failures, and it would dwarf the goods that resulted from Raegan's presidency. Though the death of thousands of Americans in Iraq is tragic, the death of millions of Americans in abortion clinics is far worse.
Interesting take. The courts, acting as a second legislative body, certainly have been the bane of conservatives for many decades.
Yes, in other words, Bush will have succeeded in un-electing "The Majority of 5". (The one-man, 50-million votes rule.)
But it's hard to think that Bush would have had a chance without the Reagan Revolution. So to me, this goes to Reagan too. Bush is lucky enough to be in the catcher's position, because we're still in the game.
