And since things can get more complicated

[heidi]

William Rehnquist died overnight.

Comments

delurks

[terribleteresa.livejournal.com]

This is so not the news I wanted to find out right now. Just when a person thinks it couldn't get worse, the universe surprises you. It's amazing how the feeling of hopelessness can overwhelm a person.

*relurks*

[magic-at-mungos.livejournal.com]

My knowledge of American politics is extremely limited. He was a Supreme Court judge, right? What effect is his death going to have on everything (anything?)?

[gunderpants.livejournal.com]

Fantastic. I'm to assume this means 'Just-Us Sunday 3' now.

[alegriagraciela.livejournal.com]

Damn. :(

[sangerin.livejournal.com]

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

I'm not up on all the political machinations, but things were machiavellian enough when it was just the nomination of John Roberts to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. Now the court needs a new Chief (and if the President elevates either Thomas or Scalia, a replacement Associate.) And of course, one of the major worries is Scalia - or Thomas - as Chief.

Popular opinion says that because any appointment made by the current administration will be overwhelmingly conservative, that cases like Roe v Wade will be overturned at the first opportunity, and we won't see the equivalent of Lawrence v Texas again for some time to come.

I've been living under a conservative dominated Court here in Australia for a few years now. And it gets incredibly discouraging when fundamental rights are no longer upheld because the majority of the bench don't believe that those things are rights at all.

[magic-at-mungos.livejournal.com]

Gah. So basically Bush can appoint whoever he wants to be in charge of the highest Court in the land? That's really scary.

Would they legally be allowed to turn over cases without the backing of a majority of Senators?

[ceilidh]

Gah. So basically Bush can appoint whoever he wants to be in charge of the highest Court in the land? That's really scary.

Yep... pretty much.

[dharmavati.livejournal.com]

Oy. That just sucks. Totally.

Democracy, it was nice knowing you.

[ani-bester.livejournal.com]

I hope they have the brains tor elaize that this is not as important as NO and Miss. right now.

I bet they don't though.

[ashesofautumn.livejournal.com]

Technically, there's a confirmation in the Senate and the House (for judicial nominees), but as there's a Republican majority...


I don't think the Supreme Court requires Senate approval for overturning cases.

[magic-at-mungos.livejournal.com]

I don't think the Supreme Court requires Senate approval for overturning cases.

So the Supreme Court can opberturn precedent left right and centre without approval and the judical psositions get chosen by the President and Senate of the day?

I'm defintely worried now.

[bear.livejournal.com]

Well, it's worked for the past 200+ years or so.

The three branches of government (executive, legislative and judicial) are regulated by a system of checks and balances -- each branch has things only it can do, and ways to check the power of the other branches when they step out of line. The President appoints federal judges (including Supreme Court justices) with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Confirmation of an appointment requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate, which is something the Republicans do *not* have (I don't know if *any* party has had a 2/3 majority in US history, which is kind of the point -- the framers wanted a big majority so that presidents wouldn't have unfettered power in selecting the judiciary).

Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, the reasoning being that this will create an independent judiciary and enable them to interpret the law without having to worry about playing politics. The Supreme Court generally follows its own precedent and only rarely overturns its own landmark cases.

However, if the Court interprets the law in a way in which Congress (or the people or whomever) thinks is wrong, then Congress has the power to pass new laws (or Constitutional amendments, which is an entirely different and more complicated animal) that essentially nullify the Court's ruling -- for example, if the Court decided that Law X meant that no one could sell pineapple on Sundays, Congress could pass Law Y specifically stating that Sunday pineapple sales were okay.

[dharmavati.livejournal.com]

I think they actually do realize it, though. As far as I've seen, the media today is focusing mostly on Katrina's damage. CNN only has this news in the runner below.

[ashesofautumn.livejournal.com]

Well, the entire Supreme Court isn't ragingly conservative.

I think there'd have to be another SC resignation/death (in addition to O'Connor and Rehnquist, I mean) in order for Roe v. Wade to get overturned.

But, yeah. It's been working for over two hundred years now so there you go. *shrug*

[magic-at-mungos.livejournal.com]

Thanks for explaining to me in small words. :) My brain's a bit fried and I'm not a political animal at the best of times.

I await further proceedings with baited breath! :)

[bear.livejournal.com]

No problem -- glad I could provide some clarity! :)

[schnoogle.livejournal.com]

Ja'mie!