I used to lean Republican, but am now definitely in the middle with some strong Liberal as well as Conservative leanings depending on the subject. I am not a fan of the current President, but I realize he will be out of office soon, never to return thanks to our two-term limit on that office.
However, I am very afraid of President George W. Bush getting to elect even one Justice to the Supreme Court-- probably the most important body in our country-- let alone two. With Justice O'Connor's shocking resignation and now Justice Rehnquist's failing health, President Bush may be able to stock two ultra-conservative leaning Justices on the Court for years and years to come.
Justice O'Connor was a pivotal swing vote for many issues I lean to the left on, women's rights, the environment, etc. Justice Rehnquist is one of our best judges in that he can divorce himself from his own politics and rule without much bias on many issues.
My one hope is that most judges seem to understand the weight of the responsibility that comes with being a Justice in the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia, for example, was considered something of a maverick and a fairly "political" choice when he got in. Yet his rulings, while maybe not as unbiased as the two I mentioned, have been surprisingly moderate and without overt bias. I can only pray that the new judges nominated by President Bush will likewise grow to understand the weight of their new position and will put aside their own biases and beliefs and make their rulings as justly as possible.
This is a time to comment to your lawmakers, though. Make sure your advocates in the House and Senate know where you stand on this issue. Congress cannot capitulate if they feel the nominees President Bush presents are the least bit unfit for duty in the Supreme Court. I urge everyone to pay close attention to these hearings once annoounced as they could change the legal landscape for decades to come. Yes, it is that important.
And, if things go poorly, or bad Justices get in and the laws start changing-- there is always Canada. I hear they only have 32 million people or so. I think one more could fit right in. I don't drink beer and am not a huge fan of ice hockey, but I'm willing to try poutine. That has to count for something.
-
You were bored and searching for something to read when serendipity brought you to my blog. Many blog responses and emails later, things see...
-
Originally, I used Yahoo! as my home page. However, I never liked how everything sort of got clumped together with ads and other things that...
-
Well, I got "the script" from Renee today. I knew something was up at work with the number of mid-level managers who were present ...
It's disturbing for sure to know that GW will have a lasting impact on laws in the US with this... EEEK!!!!
ReplyDeleteWhile I think you make many valid points, I have to disagree on one: historically, when the Supreme Court is more Conservative, it leans in favor of big business and big government over the rights of the individual.
ReplyDeleteBut I agree wholeheartedly with the intent of your post: we need someone looking out for the individual in this country and keeping our freedoms intact. And the last bastion of that is the Supreme Court.
Here's to hoping those who get elected fulfill the greater purpose and not their own political agendas.
Admittedly, I'm not as up on US politics as I used to be, simply because I can't stand GW. That being said, there is pros and cons with every person and every situation.
ReplyDeleteI really think it's an unfortunate situation for your country to be in right now with regards to your supreme court. One down and one imminent. It's truly unfortunate that the one to go didn't plan more appropriately and farther ahead and even removed himself in the interim before he became so ill. The Sandra Day O'connor resignation was perhaps ill-timed for your country, but if it's best in her personal interest, then I can understand.
I also understand Laura Bush voicing how she believes that she shoudl be replaced by a woman, however, I don't necessarily agree with that either. Woman for Woman on principle alone, doesn't really make sense if there isn't anyonegood enough to fill the boots.
The other thing I read today is that he's looking at replacements, only from Texas. I don't really agree with that either. Texas has a much stronger bottom line than most states and talk about back pocket politics!!
As far as the not a beer drinker - that's all good,even though we have a huge brewry in town. The ice hockey thing - well, that's okay too. Really, it's better to enjoy the muppet show, because really, that's what we have for a government!
The snow. How many times do I have to remind you about the snow? I think I value the free health care over poutine, btw. Poutine goes against my "too many foods mixed together" issue. People love it though.
ReplyDeleteThe only time you need to clarify the type of hockey is when it's anything other than on ice. Otherwise it's assumed. You'd also need to know the Hockey Night In Canada theme song. I think children are actually be born with the knowledge of that song now. :D
Anyway, the topic at hand: that's a scary prospect, true. By his/her very nature, a judge should be impartial at the beginning of an issue, similar to a doctor not refusing to give care to a patient following the Hippocratic Oath.
Just hope for the best.
being, I meant being. Stupid typos.
ReplyDeletei refer you to the time i, and 11 other canadian students, were politely asked to leave a pub in arromanches, france, because we were singing the "hockey night in canada" theme song too loudly.
ReplyDeletejohn: it has no words.
so yeah, what liz said about "ice hockey". as if there was REALLY any other kind. i also urge you to look at lacrosse if you want to understand more canadian sports. to be honest, not everyone watches NHL hockey - it's gotten boring anyway. but during the olympics, oh, watch out. everyone watches during the olympics. especially if it's gold medal against the states. grudge matches!
you don't need to drink beer. you really don't. but you do need to like the snow, winter sports, and get used to a very short summer.
as for the supreme court, well, for the past 200 years supreme courts in the united states have been gradually interpreting the laws in such a way as to privilege the powers of the executive - i don't see that changing. yes, the issues of personal privacy and rights are coming up - i give you internet searching, file sharing technologies, identity theft, stem cells, terrorism, homeland security, guantanamo bay...
it is an interesting period technologically and for human rights, and the laws have not yet caught up. but they will. in the next 10 years.
so bush, and a republican house and senate, having the power to appoint conservative judges to the supreme court - two of them! - in this particular time, well, that's scary.
I have to echo the others about hockey and beer. I'm born and bred here and don't like hockey or beer. But if you come to the maritimes, you have to be willing to endure perpetuation of a stereotype (unemployed people drinking heavily). I'll drink hard stuff with you if you have to move.
ReplyDeletePoutine is just fries with hot gravy and cheese on it... It's good stuff.