Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (84778)	11/8/2004 2:24:54 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793845

Why? By Matthew Yglesias I keep reading things like this: "In addition, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's illness increases the likelihood that Mr. Bush will nominate at least one new Supreme Court justice early in his second term. A fight over ideology could erupt if he tries to reward social conservatives by nominating someone who is against abortion rights." Why would that happen? Rehnquist already wants to overturn Roe. It doesn't get overturned because there are five justices solidly behind the Court's abortion rights jurisprudence, and one additional judge (Kennedy) who supports some, but not all, of said jurisprudence. Replacing the pro-life, anti-Roe Rehnquist with another pro-life, anti-Roe nominee wouldn't change anything. Or, rather, it would surely change something but nothing relevant to abortion. My prediction is that contrary to much of the breathless reporting we've been seeing lately, replacing Rehnquist won't be a big deal. Bush will appoint a new judge whose record indicates that he'll act similarly to Rehnquist on all the hotbutton issues. The right will be perfectly happy -- they like Rehnquist. The left won't be thrilled, but they'll accept it -- they've been putting up with Rehnquist for 30 years now. The problems will arise of O'Connor or Stevens leaves the Court.