Chief Justice O’Connor?

I’m not buying it.

I don’t really know enough about the judicial system and the politics surrounding it to comment knowledgeably, so I probably won’t be posting on it much. Well, except to point out Leftist skulduggery, and all.

But anyway, Arlen Specter thinks Justice O’Connor would help the country. Help the country what, I’m not so clear on. (via Instapundit, who continues to bang the Eugene Volokh drum.)

Regardless, with at least one, probably two, and maybe even three slots to fill this summer, we’re sure to see, hear, and feel it hit the fan. It probably will give me some good material to adjust more MSNBC.com headline graphics, if nothing else.

UPDATE: Originalism defined at Amy Ridenour’s.

Comments

  1. As it now stands, the court is basically split 4 vs 4 with O’Connor as the swing vote. IMO, this current arrangment is for the best, as neigther conservative or liberals get what they want. As a result most of court rulings on ‘social’ issues are thrown back to the states or are narrowly decided to fit the facts of the case at issue. This helps keeps the court out of the political wars. The court works best as a nonpolitical protector of minority rights and as a break against sudden or far reaching laws. The battle to replace O’Connor is going to be messy, as whoever replaces her will have the power to shape constitutional for decades. A court that heavily represents a particular idiology rapidly becomes a political rally point. A good example is the Rosevelt vs Supreme court wars of the 1930’s. Making O’Connor the Chief justice, will keep the 4 vs 4 ballance, as Bush could then appoint a conservative justice to keep his base happy, and the democrat opposition would be disarmed as they could still pin their hopes on O’Connor. If Bush gets the opportunity to appoint 2 or 3 justices, I fear that would see a true nuclear option implode the senate. Simply put, the ability to appoint supreme court judges is a presidents greatest ability to affect future history.

  2. A really bad idea proven by the fact that Arlen Specter is in favor of it. Scalia or Thomas as Chief Justice and a Court that takes the Constitution seriously. We did not do all the heavy lifting to get Republican control of Congress and the Presidency just to give corporate welfare to ConAgra. Republicans should comprimise on this as much as Clinton did with Ginsberg (that would be not at all).

  3. Scalia as chief justice. Scalia of the ‘actual innocence is not a legal basis for appeal?’ Scalia is a brilliant man, but some of his views are truely scary, as a chief justice, I would have to warm up my German ID card. Thomas makes Scalia look like a left wing liberal. I yearn for the day, that we somehow manage to get a leader with some right wing view points on minimal government, low taxes, free enterprise, and creative use of capitolism to improve the environment, with a left wing views on lets not make everyone hew to my religious point of view, homosexuality is not a major cause of divorce, compromise is not a form of surrender, and judge people by what they do, not by what they claim to believe.