re: today's thought exerciseNick: "Will it be the Republicans who lose the independant vote for nominating a right-wing anti-Roe judge[?]" Why would Republicans lose more of the independent vote for nominating a pro-life candidate than the Democrats would for opposing one? First of all, no matter which Justice retires, the new Justice will not be the deciding vote in a potential case overturning Roe. There are currently six votes on the bench for Roe (O'Connor, Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsberg, Souter, Stevens), so even if it were one of these justices who retire, there would still be a majority for Roe regardless of who is nominated and confirmed. And second, the public is just about evenly split on the abortion issue, with momentum on the side of the pro-lifers. As to how the public will react to the nomination of a conservative, it would depend on who is retiring. There are two justices who might retire soon, Rehnquist and O'Connor. In neither case will the nomination of a conservative hurt the Republicans. If it were Rehnquist, Bush can plausibly argue that a conservative should replace another conservative. If O'Connor retires, Bush would have to nominate a woman to the bench. This, however, will be an advantage to Bush, since the Democrats will find it harder oppose a woman, and the media coverage will be more on the candidate as a woman than as a conservative. (And yes, conservative female judges do exist). So I don't see any problems for Bush, unless it were Kennedy or one of the liberal justices. Kennedy is still relatively young, and the liberal justices are going to hang on to their seats until grim death, or until a Democrat is president. Anyway, the issue is moot because there will probably not be an opening on the bench until after the next election, rumors of Rehnquist retiring next year notwithstanding. |
Comments:
Post a Comment
