Trust Us, "Justice Miers" Would Make a Big Big Difference
Reuter's analyzes the standing of the Court (SCOTUS) in the Oregon case currently before the nation's highest court, a case that will forever impact how patients die: The Court is evenly divided.As conservatives continue to pretend to object to Miers' nomination on the grounds that she might not be conservative enough, this the most political appointment in the history of the Supreme Court is about to go to the Senate where, if confirmed, Miers would no doubt tilt such rulings toward the conservative. And that, friends, ends the question of where the nation's jurisprudence on bioethics issues like stem cells, abortion and euthanasia will go. Is there really any question that the confirmation of Miers would mean a quick and sharp shift in Court decisions that would bear on abortion, euthanasia and stem cells, among a dozen other bioethics issues that will come before the Court in the coming decade?
No.
Yet the "GOP is not satisfied" charade continues, suppressing what should be a deafening echo of protest against this nomination by commentators from the left. Yes there are real intellectuals who oppose the Miers nomination on principle. But that isn't what is at stake here.
contribute a comment
Comments have been closed for this post.
comments
You have got to be kidding if you think the Right is pretending to be upset by the Miers nomination. Bill Kristol? George Will? Robert Bork? These guys are the heavy intellectual hitters of the Right and they are very unhappy with Miers. I'm a liberal, so I think I can say this: your posting smacks of liberal paranoia.
If you are paying attention, the commentators on the left are actually showing some surprising restraint. What do you think James Dobson's or Jay Sekulo's reaction would be to a bunch of liberals screaming and rending their garments? I think they'd smile. The liberals are not silent. They are just biding their time to see if the Right actually does their work for them.
- by Atticus Finch on Oct 12, 2005 at 4:18 PM | link
I wasn't aware of the Supreme Court's position on stem cells. Have they published a position paper of some sort?
What would it mean for the Supreme Court's position on euthanasia--also a matter on which the Supreme Court hasn't decided a case--to shift its position to the right? I mean, if the Court has never spoken to the issue, how does it shift its position? (And to the extent that the Court has addressed so-called "right to die" cases, and determined, generally, to defer to the states, what would it mean to shift to the right? Are we supposed to believe that the Supreme Court's conservative members will begin to write their substantive positions into the law? Why should we suppose anything so ridiculous as that?)
- by Thomas on Oct 12, 2005 at 11:35 PM | link
i've just now resolved to stop clicking on the comments page on this great blog, as the discourse seems to be declining (was it ever worth reading?), and it's always the same spouty people who chime in.
- by on Oct 13, 2005 at 2:33 AM | link
Thank you Anon.
Nevertheless, you might miss a reply from the Oracles at AJOB, who can not only read minds, they can tell the future.
- by Beverly on Oct 13, 2005 at 3:31 AM | link
I see in your future many many angry stem cells.
- by eds on Oct 13, 2005 at 4:20 AM | link
and a friendly, conservative, utterly unqualified corporate lawyer justice with zero relevant experience and zero relevant skills.
- by eds on Oct 13, 2005 at 4:27 PM | link
The present administration appointing someone into a position of great responsibility on the basis of cronyism rather than merit? Unthinkable.
The present administration masking its intentions behind a world of spin? Unprecedented.
A majority of conservative members of the Supreme Court being anything but impartial interpreters of the Constitution? Pure speculation.
What will these crazy liberals think of next? Can't they see that the President is actually a hippie, trying to undermine the GOP from within?
- by Sam I am on Oct 14, 2005 at 3:49 AM | link