« History in the Flesh | Main | Children's Campaign Fund - A PAC for Children's Issues »

October 01, 2007

If There Weren't Already Enough Needs for Another Blue Wave

According to Jeffrey Toobin, the three most moderate Supreme Court justices are stacked up waiting to leave the court once there is a Democrat in the White House.  Joel Connelly writes about Toobin's new book, "The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court". 

Connelly quotes from Toobin and adds his own chilling analysis:

"Through the tense standoff of the Burger and Rehnquist years, a powerful conservative rebellion against the court has been building.

"It has been, in many respects, a remarkable ideological offensive, nurtured at various time in such locales as elite law schools, evangelical churches and, most importantly and most recently, the White House.

"Its agenda has remained largely the same over the decades. Reverse Roe v. Wade and allow states to ban abortion. Expand executive power. End racial preferences intended to assist African- Americans. Speed executions. Welcome religion into the public sphere."

With the naming of Alito and Roberts as chief justice, the right's agenda is within reach.

I'm pretty sure we're going to get that Democratic president.  But this possibility should make us ever more intent on getting a solid 60 Democratic votes in the Senate so we don't have to get squishy on who is nominated.  If those three Justices retire, we need three equally stalwart, replacements.  Or, even better, a couple actual liberals.

Posted by Lynn Allen on October 1, 2007 at 09:12 AM in National and International Politics | Permalink

Comments

Ultra-liberal Ruth Bader Ginburg was approved 96 to 3, with Republicans supporting her. Bork got Borked but Ginsburg did not. Why? Bork did nothing wrong other than be conservative. Ginsburg is at least as extreme left as Bork is on the right. Contrast the 96-3 Ginsburg vote with the Roberts 78-22 confirmation vote. Roberts, while conservative, was extremely qualified to be on the court. Liberals have a much easier time getting on the court than conservatives. You shouldn't worry so.

Posted by: TC | Oct 1, 2007 4:32:16 PM

Sorry TC, but you need to do better homework. The fact is that Bork was not only rejected by the Senate but ROUNDLY rejected, by a 42-58 vote. That's about as bad as it gets. Two Democrats voted in favor of his confirmation while 6 Republicans voted against. The main reason? Bork's central role in the Saturday Night Massacre, when he went around the attorney general and deputy attorney general to do the bidding of a criminal president named Dick Nixon -- and fired the special prosecutor who was working to expose the secret tapes Nixon had made during the Watergate debacle.

Nice try though. Yours is an entertaining -- if totally insupportable -- theory for a rainy Monday evening.

Posted by: shoephone | Oct 1, 2007 11:08:54 PM

The other piece to consider, besides unsubstantiated claims, is that the conservative Republicans have decided to systematically undermine liberal courts. So they have bolstered the Federalist Society, established a slew of law schools and "think tanks" and done research on just about every jurist in the country to determine who will remain conservative and who is "suspect" from their point of view.

It will be decades before we can catch up and in the meantime, we will have to be as vigilant as possible.

Posted by: Lynn | Oct 2, 2007 8:22:25 AM

Post a comment