
 |
|
Nov. 24, 2009
JWisdom.com: You are a Philanthropist
with Aliza Bulow (5 minutes)
Nov. 23, 2009
JWisdom.com: Actually, it really is all about you with Rabbi Lawrence Hajioff
Nov. 20, 2009
Nov. 19, 2009
Jonathan Tobin: ADL Crosses the Line with Report Bashing Obama Critics
Nov. 18, 2009
JWisdom.com: The (Jewish) Dating Game
with Rabbi Lawrence Hajioff (8 minutes)
Nov. 17, 2009
Steven Emerson: How Does the 4th Amendment Impact Terror Finance Investigations?
JWisdom.com: If Frank Sinatra married Edith Piaf
with Rabbi Y.Y. Rubinstein (2 minutes) Life lessons from what would be regarded as the most inappropriate lyrics ever sung
Nov. 16, 2009
JWisdom.com: Deconstructing faith
with Rabbi Warren Goldstein (9 minutes)
Nov. 13, 2009
JWisdom.com Sarah's subjective reality
with Rabbi Sroy Levitansky ( 6 minutes)
Nov. 12, 2009
JWisdom.com Does God get tired?
with Rabbi Harvey Belovski ( 5 minutes)
Nov. 11, 2009
JWisdom.com Marriages are not made in Heaven
with Rabbi Lawrence Hajioff (VERY fast 15 minutes)
Nov. 10, 2009
Michael Doyle: Author of book exposing CAIR ordered to remove supporting documents from Web
JWisdom.com If the creation so loudly shouts the existence of the Creator, why aren't more people believers? with Rabbi Naftali Brawer (9 minutes)
Nov. 9, 2009
Mark Steyn: Shooter exposes hole
in U.S. terror strategy
JWisdom.com It's never too late to
have a happy childhood with Sarah Chana Radcliffe (5 minutes)
Nov. 6, 2009
JWisdom.com Zero to 1/60th: How
to Empower An Hour with Gavriel Aryeh Sande (7 minutes)
Nov. 5, 2009
JWisdom.com Hidden Hints: Unlocking
Faith & Prayer with Rabbi Jay Yaacov Schwartz (10 minutes)
Nov. 4, 2009
JWisdom.com When God played peacemaker
With Rabbi Sroy Levitansky (5 minutes)
Nov. 3, 2009
JWisdom.com Are you are closet idolater?
With Sara Yoheved Rigler (10 minutes)
Nov. 2, 2009
JWisdom.com Abraham's Strange Change
With Rabbi Yitzchok Fingerer (5 minutes)
|
| |
Jewish World Review
June 28, 2005
/ 21 Sivan, 5765
A right turn on the high court?
By
Jonathan Turley
| 
|
|
|
|
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
It is a true sign of desperate times when liberals are fretting over of the expected retirement of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. It is not that they have come to love Rehnquist once called the "Lone Ranger" for his strident conservative dissents on the Warren Court. Yet, liberals have learned that there are actually judges to the right of Rehnquist, a number of whom are on the short list to replace him. It is like Luke Skywalker celebrating the demise of the Emperor only to learn that he was considered the mild-mannered runt of the litter.
Conventional wisdom holds that swapping a Rehnquist, 80, with another conservative simply preserves the current division of the court. This oversimplification ignores the fact that Rehnquist occasionally surprised people, as he did in his 2000 opinion upholding the 1966 Miranda decision and its requirement that police inform arrestees of their rights. Likewise, he joined his liberal colleagues in holding that states could be sued for violating women's rights on family and medical leave a departure from his own states' rights cases.
Such surprises are not expected from the short-list judges jurists viewed as the purest among the hard-right faithful. Some of the short-listers hold views rejected by Rehnquist as too extreme.
Even only Rehnquist's retirement might produce some significant changes. For example, Rehnquist voted in 2003 in a 5-4 ruling to reject First Amendment protections for cross burnings. The possibility of two vacancies has both liberal and conservative groups raising millions of dollars for their war chests.
Due to decades of a fairly stagnant 5-4 division, an unprecedented number of fundamental doctrines is dangling by a single vote. This term, the court added 5-4 decisions to this list, including last week's sweeping one that allows cities to take private homes and give the properties to private developers.
Moreover, when considered on the basis of age and health, the three other most likely retirements would cause the center of gravity on the court to shift sharply to the right: John Paul Stevens (85), Sandra Day O'Connor (75) and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (72 with a history of cancer).
The replacement of any of these justices could produce the most transformative doctrinal changes in the court's history. Consider just a few areas resting on the bubble:
- Abortion. These three justices represent half of current votes supporting Roe v. Wade. A loss of one of the three could flip a 5-4 decision protecting "partial-birth" abortions. If President Bush replaced just two, he could deliver the holy grail of conservative politics for at least four decades: the overturning of Roe.
- Affirmative action. Change one of the three and you change the result in the 2003 Grutter decision, in which the court upheld the use of affirmative action programs in university admissions.
- Campaign financing and reform. Replace one of the three and you reverse the court's 5-4 ruling in 2003 upholding federal restrictions on campaign financing wiping away years of hard-fought legislative reforms.
- Church and state. A loss of any of the three would likely shift the balance in religion cases, allowing greater entanglement of church and state.
- Death penalty. The court's recent 5-4 ruling barring the execution of juveniles could change with the loss of either Stevens or Ginsburg.
- Disability. One change could flip a series of 5-4 decisions on disabilities law. These include a decision last year allowing the disabled to sue states for access to courthouses and this year's ruling (with Stevens and Ginsburg in the majority) extending the disability act to foreign cruise liners.
- Discrimination. A loss of any of three could reverse the result in a number of discrimination cases, including recent opinions supporting the broad application of Title IX, the federal law imposing gender equity in school sports.
- Environmental laws. These three justices are part of a slim five-vote majority on various environmental rulings, such as the recent opinion upholding the right of the Environmental Protection Agency to stop states from issuing construction permits below compliance standards.
- Federal sentencing. A loss of either Stevens or Ginsburg could flip the result in the court's recent decision striking down portions of the federal sentencing guidelines a historic decision giving judges greater discretion in criminal cases. Likewise, such a change could undo the landmark 2000 ruling in Apprendi, in which the court barred judges from increasing sentences without factual findings from a jury.
- Gay rights. A loss of two of the three justices would lose the majority in the 2003 Lawrence decision that struck down anti-sodomy laws as well as some related decisions.
- States' rights and federalism. Rehnquist's "Federalism Revolution" struck down various federal statutes as intrusive of states' rights, such as the Violence Against Women Act. One or two new justices could restart the federalism revolution with a vengeance.
These are just a few of the highlights from an impressive list of close decisions and do not include areas such as criminal procedure, where numerous rulings hang by one vote. After decades of division, the sudden emergence of a stable majority would be revolutionary for the country.
For Bush, there is nothing less than a legacy at stake. With two or three appointments, Bush could have the greatest effect on the Supreme Court (and the country) of any president in history.
For Rehnquist, such a legacy is already reality. Few chief justices can claim his success in reshaping the court. Indeed, the dismantling of Earl Warren's legacy was the foundation for his own. In terms of his impact on the law, Rehnquist now ranks as one of the greatest chief justices in history.
However, even a few years ago, Rehnquist never could have imagined the scene that appears likely to unfold: the streets lined with mournful liberals as the Lone Ranger rides into retirement.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Jonathan Turley is a law professor at George Washington University.
Click here to visit his website. Comment by clicking here.
ARCHIVES
© 2005, Jonathan Turley
|
|

Arnold Ahlert
Mitch Albom
Michael Barone
Dave Barry
Tony Blankley
Andy Borowitz
David Broder
Stratfor Briefing
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Suzanne Fields
John Fund
Frank J. Gaffney
Lloyd Garver
Jonah Goldberg
Julia Gorin
Jonathan Gurwitz
Paul Greenberg
Lewis Grossberger
Victor Davis Hanson
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Laura Ingraham
Cheri Jacobus Jeff Jacoby
Paul Johnson
Jack Kelly
Ed Koch
Ch. Krauthammer
Michael Ledeen
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Kathryn Lopez
Rich Lowry
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Dick Morris
Bill O'Reilly
Jim Mullen
Clarence Page
Kathleen Parker
Dennis Prager
Wesley Pruden
Tom Purcell
Jonathan Rauch
Celia Rivenbark
Robert Robb
Cokie & Steve Roberts
Pat Sajak
Debra J. Saunders
Culture Shlock
Roger Simon
Michael Smerconish
Thomas Sowell
Mark Steyn
John Stossel
Cal Thomas
Bob Tyrrell
Diana West
Dave Weinbaum
George Will
Walter Williams
Byron York
Mort Zuckerman

Robert Arial
Chuck Asay
Baloo
Chip Bok
Dry Bones
Lisa Benson
John Branch
Gary Brookins
John Cole
J. D. Crowe
John Deering
Brian Duffy
Everything's Relative
Mallard Fillmore
Jake Fuller
Bob Gorrel
Joe Heller
David Hitch
Jerry Holber
Steve Kelley
Jeff Koterba
Dick Locher
Chan Lowe
Ranan R. Lurie
Jimmy Margulies
Rick McKee
Michael Ramirez
Kevin Siers
Jeff Stahler
Ed Stein
Danna Summers
John Trever
Gary Varvel
Kirk Walters

How 2
Lori Borgman
The Savvy Consumer
Elder matters
Fixit
Dr. Peter Gott
GET A JOB! by Marty Nemko
Richard Lederer
Tech Maven
Every Monday Matters
Nutrition Myths
Bookmark These
Bruce Williams
How Stuff Works
|