---

by ByronGeorge Bush picks the sucessor, although the US Senate can block him; the president will be trying to get as extreme a choice as possible into the court to further his religious fundamentalist agenda.

---

How do you know that? George just happen to mention it to you over post-coital tea and crumpets?

I'm not sure I really understand any of that (being blonde and all ). Will it affect me and mine over here in anyway?

---

by Milky
How do you know that? George just happen to mention it to you over post-coital tea and crumpets?

---

I don't claim to know all that much about politics (quite the opposite in fact), but why exactly would any politician want to reduce the level of control they have in the current government? It only seems commonsense that Junior (same as any political leader) would try and get a judge who agrees with their political agenda.

Anyways, I hope whoever gets the job likes pretzels...

---

by Milky
(quotes)

How do you know that? George just happen to mention it to you over post-coital tea and crumpets?

---

Fun as your method sounds, I used how he handled previous judicial appointments as a precedent.

As you clearly disagree with my assessment, I look forward to hearing why you think Bush will appoint someone against his own interests.

---

by Teresa
I'm not sure I really understand any of that (being blonde and all ). Will it affect me and mine over here in anyway?

---

Not directly, but it could help decide the direction of American politics for decades, and we all know how good British PMs are at ignoring that.

Byron's right. Bush will try to appoint an extremist.

The Democrats in the Senate will try to stop him or her. They don't have the votes to reject the person. So they'll try a filibuster--which is when the folks in the minority get up in front of the Senate and take turns just talking and talking and talking non-stop about everything under the sun (they can read the comics if they want to) to tie up Senate business so whatever they are against but don't have the votes to stop can't come to the Senate floor. They can filibuster someone's nomination for weeks--and that has been successfully done during the last few months to stop some of Bush's more obnoxious nominations to the federal bench from getting approved.

It takes 60 votes (out of 100) to end a filibuster. And in this case, I think Republicans will eventually get their way. If they don't, they've threatened to use what they call "the nuclear option" in the past, and simply change the Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster. In the longrun, Bush will get his way. Then the Court will be even more consevative than it is now. But it will probably affect domestic policy here in the U.S. much more than it would affect anyone outside the U.S.

---

by Sandia
So they'll try a filibuster--

---

I do love a good filibuster.

I really hope somehow Bush's choice can be tempered. Maybe the fact that his opinion polls are the lowest ever in the history of his Presidency will tempt him to go easy. I doubt it though. He's a President who is willing to take chances with his popularity to do what he thinks should be done.

Unfortunately, that's bad for Americans. We won't suffer directly over here, but civil liberties in the US, which are at a low point already, could take somewhat of a downturn.

---

by Sandia
In the longrun, Bush will get his way. Then the Court will be even more consevative than it is now.

---

How conservative is the present court though? It's not the 1960s Warren court, and they gave the 2000 election to That Man, but among other things they've struck down the Texas Sodomy Law, upheld Miranda rights and restricted capital punishment. There are so many political shades that conservative candidates can end up making progressive rulings. The most conservative member, Scalia, was against striking down the Texas law but has upheld flag burning and was all for turning Guantanamo inmates free on the spot while the liberal justices invented an "unlawful combatant" category to compromise with Bush.

Even if they're going to appoint another Republican, I can see a Senate battle between a thinking conservative and a Bushbot. Think there's any chance of this?

---

But it will probably affect domestic policy here in the U.S. much more than it would affect anyone outside the U.S.

---

Immediately perhaps, but the world takes its lead from the USA. US government anti-abortion policies already have major consequences for African aid, one can only imagine the effect if abortion was actually outlawed domestically. Britain has used Guantanamo Bay to justify detaining people with charge. If the US takes a dramatic turn to the right, it's going to trickle down to everyone else.

NB, I continue to await milky's assessment of a subject he's so passionate about.

---

by Byron
NB, I continue to await milky's assessment of a subject he's so passionate about.

---

This is just like watching my children bicker with each other. They're 6 & 8yrs old

---

by Teresa
(quotes)

This is just like watching my children bicker with each other. They're 6 & 8yrs old

---

Haha!

Of course George Bush is going to pick someone who agrees with him politically, it would be really stupid not to. The Supreme Court is as powerful as you can get in America really, but I don't think their decisions will drastically affect our lives over here.

To be honest, if you're a judge in the Supreme Court, you're a judge there for life, and most of them have been there for years and years, so I can't see this as a drastic shake up, as it's only one change in many years.

Still, interesting to see who he will pick though.

---

by Miss Corrupt
Of course George Bush is going to pick someone who agrees with him politically, it would be really stupid not to. The Supreme Court is as powerful as you can get in America really, but I don't think their decisions will drastically affect our lives over here.

To be honest, if you're a judge in the Supreme Court, you're a judge there for life, and most of them have been there for years and years, so I can't see this as a drastic shake up, as it's only one change in many years.

Still, interesting to see who he will pick though.

---

But this time there's the combination of the most extremist president in decades with several likely retirements, most importantly Reinquest, the court's head honcho, who's seriously ill with cancer. As Bush has a weak power base in the US parliament, his best chance at a legacy is decisively rebalancing the court to the right, and he might well pull it off.

---

by Byron
NB, I continue to await milky's assessment of a subject he's so passionate about.

---

I'm not passionate about it in the slightest...however I don't agree with your initial comment that "the president will be trying to get as extreme a choice as possible into the court to further his religious fundamentalist agenda". Bush's public support isn't the greatest so to put a more popular choice into the Supreme Court would benefit him far more in my opinion.

Why not wait and see what happens before you start demonizing him for something that he's yet to do?

Maffrew, the fact that Bush's opinion polls are low will have no effect on him. He's arrogant and stubborn and convinced that he's ALWAYS right and anyone with a different opinion isn't worth listening to. So what the part of the American public that disagrees with him thinks is totally unimportant--just like nations around the world who disagree with him are unimportant to him. He'll pick who he wants and he won't care who doesn't like it.

Byron, you're right in asking how conservative the present court is. It's actually more conservative than I'd like to see it. But the problem is that it's split between four justice who often vote conservatively (William Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy) and four who often vote more liberally (John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Stephen Breyer, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg). That's in general. Sandra Day O'Connor was often the moderate voice that allowed a 5-4 split stopping some of the more damaging decisions from going through. Again, that's in general and doesn't always apply.

So Bush being able to appoint a strong conservative means there won't be a moderate swing vote and the conservatives will have a better chance to win every battle by a 5-4 decision. You're very up on American politics, so I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. When I say the court is already conservative, I guess I'm looking at the fact that there is no chance now for a liberal majority because there are already so many conservative on the Court.

And yes, conservatives can make progressive rulings. But there's just too much at stake to rely on that.

As for the battle between a "thinking conservative and a Bushbot," I don't know that Bush would ever nominate a "thinking conservative." He's going to nominate an extreme right-wing ideologue of his own ilk who will further curtail civil liberties, try to outlaw abortion, and on and on. And by the way, I should make it clear that I don't think all conservatives are bad. It's the Bush brand of conservative that I have no use for because they have damaged the U.S. in so many ways that are not even apparent from the outside.

Miss Corrupt, the Supreme Court has incredibe power in the U.S. Because they interpret the law, they can basically determine the law. When someone runs for president in the U.S., one of the things that any thinking American voter considers is whether there is likely to be a vacancy on the Supreme Court and how will the politics of the person elected affect that. One reason many progressives did not want Bush re-elected was the fact that it was clear that one or more of the Supreme Court justices would leave during the next president's term--and progressives did NOT want Bush to be in a position to pick the person or persons. The fact that he will probably pick one or two new justices will have a profound effect on this country for years to come--and it won't be a positive one.

---

by Milky
(quotes)

I'm not passionate about it in the slightest...however I don't agree with your initial comment that "the president will be trying to get as extreme a choice as possible into the court to further his religious fundamentalist agenda". Bush's public support isn't the greatest so to put a more popular choice into the Supreme Court would benefit him far more in my opinion.

Why not wait and see what happens before you start demonizing him for something that he's yet to do?

---

Popular with who?

Bush doesn't try to appeal across party lines, he stokes the fears of morally conservative Americans with hardline policies. His popular support base is drawn from the millions of Christian Evangelicals and socially conservative Republicans. He'd loose them by appointing a moderate justice. His election campaign championed constitutional bans on flag burning and gay marriage.

I have no need to "wait and see" what happens as Bush's track record has made the course of events abundently clear. For your opinion to be right, he'd have to tear up his entire political outlook overnight.

---

by Sandia
As for the battle between a "thinking conservative and a Bushbot," I don't know that Bush would ever nominate a "thinking conservative." He's going to nominate an extreme right-wing ideologue of his own ilk who will further curtail civil liberties, try to outlaw abortion, and on and on. And by the way, I should make it clear that I don't think all conservatives are bad. It's the Bush brand of conservative that I have no use for because they have damaged the U.S. in so many ways that are not even apparent from the outside.

---

Not at first perhaps, but if the Senate rejects all his choices would he not have to start watering them down? My knowledge of this is pretty hazy, but didn't Regan suffer several defeats when he tried to appoint hardliners?

---

by Byron
(quotes)
Not at first perhaps, but if the Senate rejects all his choices would he not have to start watering them down? My knowledge of this is pretty hazy, but didn't Regan suffer several defeats when he tried to appoint hardliners?

---

Yes, I suppose he would have to pull back a bit from the most extreme choices if he couldn't get them confirmed. But there's a whole lot of room between Bush's hard right extreme and anyone who would be acceptable to the likes of me. There are a lot of horrible federal judges that he can tap, and he'll certainly do that. The Democrats will, in the end, be forced to accept the lesser of many evils.

As for Reagan, you're right. If I remember correctly, he got defeated when he tried to put Judge Bork on the Supreme Court. I don't remember if a filibuster killed Bork's nomination or it was a straight floor vote.