Nixon's appointments all didn't turn out to be that bad. Neither did Reagan's. Bush can vet his nominees till doomsday and they may turn on the right wingers anyway. But yeah, it's scary.

"...you will see all sorts of inroads made on cherished personal liberties."

The Supreme Court already removed the right to personal property - there isn't much left.

Believe me, these people will not turn on Bush. Scalia hasn't, Thomas hasn't, and the next three won't, either. The deletion of the work of Earl Warren and FDR from the laws of this country is about to begin in earnest.

The condemnation decision didn't surprise me, except how close the vote on the Court was. I always assumed that the bureaucrats could force you out of your house or place of business to make a rich person richer. Here in Portland it seems as though we have hundreds of city employees working on such projects every day.

O'Connor is gone and it is time for George Bush to do the right thing. All life is precious and must be protected. This includes the unborn. MommyCool notes that all should think before the unintended happens - protect the unborn.

Oh, don't worry, Mommy, they will. In fact, in red states you won't be able to buy a condom without a note from your mother -- and Wal-Mart won't sell you one even if you have it. So there'll be plenty more unborn people to protect.

Hey Mommy, get busy and start adopting those frozen embryos. There are 400,000 unborn who are freezing in fertility clinics across the nation. They don't even have sweaters on. Geeez! So what are you waiting for?

I've said this more than once, but when I took history from William Appleman Williams (go Beavs), he termed Herbert Hoover something along the order of the last honest conservative. Held the administration, given times and circumstances, as a loss but the man in good regard.

The comparison to Bush is likely (even grossly) inapt.

"Holy War version of Vietnam" is likely frighteningly apt.

I'm not sure, but I think he meant the J. Edgar Hoover administration.

I imagine the Democrats will filibuster and delay on Bush's conservative appointment just like the Republicans did on Clinton's liberal appointment, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Oh wait, the Republicans didn't do that, did they? Well, at least we know what to do when the Democrats eventually do get the White House back.

Sweet Jiminy Christmas Jack! Quit being such a drama queen.

You are going to blow a gasket and what good does that do those of us who enjoy your ramblings regarding local issues?

It is a beautiful evening, saunter on down to County Cork sit on the back patio and enjoy a pint.

I recently started reading Ian Kershaw's 'Hitler 1889-1936 Hubris' (Please no one tell me how it ends okay?). I agree w/ Margaret Cho's assement of Bush that "he is no Hitler, he is not motivated enough", but what strikes me is how both Bush and Hitler were washouts, total failures until they discovered politics (or politics discovered them). What is it about the totally mediocre that makes them so electable? Have we learned nothing from History?

"...were washouts, total failures until they discovered politics..."

Sounds like much of the Portland City Council.

Representational Democracy is the culprit. Democracy is worse then Socialism for producing wimpy leaders. We need to bring back Monarchs! Long live Kings and Queens! Think about it, the last effective leader this country had was FDR and he ruled until his death just like a King.

I think I'll save my trip to the County Cork for the night they overturn Roe v. Wade (in a couple of years). I'll need a beer that night.

Oh wait, the Republicans didn't do that, did they?

Yeah, and you know why? Because they whined so much in the media that Clinton consulted with Orin Hatch, WHO RECOMMENDED Ginsberg. (My source for this: Hatch's own memoris.) Will Bush consult with the Dems on this one? Uh, no.

Those who don't learn FROM history are bound to repeat it, and those who flat out don't learn history are bound to shoot their mouths off on blogs and look like idiots.

Jack,

Do not dispair. The law of unintended consequences may apply.

The Republicans like to talk about certain social issues because it keeps the base happy. Actually doing something, however, may have different results.

Suppose the Supreme Court reverses Roe v. Wade. That will allow state legislatures to pass laws on abortion. The result may favor democrats. We may find that a majority of voters do not want doctors and women to go to jail.

Wow,
From your writings, its hard to imagine any one of you folks being brave enough to leave the house to go get some illegal immigrant made coffee at Starbucks. Do you all look over your shoulders for the Gestapo? I guess when I visit Portland this summer, I will have to keep an eye on the sky, in case it falls.

With six votes on the Court (which is what he'll have in a couple of years), Bush will be able to have the entire right to privacy voided. If you don't have lots of money, you will have no rights. Kind of like it is today, only much worse.

Lumpy, wait 'til they see what you've been looking at on the internet. You may change your tune from whatever gulag you've been locked up in.

Dear Jack,
You seem distraught so I thought this would be a good time to compliment you. Recently you were commenting on a possible upcoming radio event and you wrote:

“I was thinking maybe they were going to do a week from Iraq. But yeah, the Rose Garden seems right. It's another tragic quagmire in which teenagers are sent into battle without the proper tools and strategy.”
Posted by Jack Bog at July 1, 2005 10:54 AM

I’ve been a professional comedy writer for 12 years with over 460 jokes sold to Jay Leno. The level of that observation is topnotch. At some point during the punch line I became a Jack Bog fan.
Bill McDonald
P.S. I thought I should mention this before the new Court outlaws comedy.

Yeah, but Jack, as a law professor you're supposed to know what legal reasoning is, and to teach your students "how to think like a lawyer." William O. Douglas lapsing into a channeling fugue and declaring that he found a whole theretofore unknown and unwritten right in the shadowy ether, the supposed "Right To Privacy", fails on both counts.

we are fucked

William O. Douglas lapsing into a channeling fugue and declaring that he found a whole theretofore unknown and unwritten right in the shadowy ether, the supposed "Right To Privacy", was one of the 10 greatest moments in legal history.

Bill McD., thanks for the kind words. That one was kind of Leno-esque, if I do say so.

William O. Douglas lapsing into a channeling fugue and declaring that he found a whole theretofore unknown and unwritten right in the shadowy ether, the supposed "Right To Privacy", was one of the 10 greatest moments in legal history.

Even if that were true, query yourself this: If it was ever meant to be that easy to find new rights in the Constitution, then why bother with including an Article V?

And while you're at it, point out the language in Article III that in any way gives the Court the power to find new unnamed and unwritten rights, especially in the context of an Article III that gets very explicit and very specific everywhere else.

What you and others of your view don't seem to fully get is that these aren't merely disgreements with the substance of things like the judicially concocted constitutional "Right To Privacy." In most ways the substance of that is the lesser concern. What's of greater concern is the fact that the process was chucked. And it was chucked simply because it was getting in the way of some people getting what they wanted.

So now you say you fear that Bush's appointees may undo that stuff, the substance of things like the unwritten right to privacy. But what you are really fearful of, or ought to be, is that, thanks to the having chucked the need to adhere to process, future reconstituted Courts are freed up --indeed empowered-- to do whatever they want. And that not only cuts both ways, it cuts all ways. And that is indeed something to be afraid of.

Yes, let's turn our civil liberties over to the day-to-day fluctuations of majority opinion. It will be a great country.

What, the political views of five out of nine political appointee lawyers is superior to a democratic republic? They were given lifetime appointments so as to, hopefully, remove them from the political fray. But if they're going to behave like politicians anyway, and pander to political interest groups, I say take away the lifetime tenure and at least make them accountable for what they do.

I believe they had this argument in Philadelphia 200+ years ago. Your side lost.

Not to mention the fact that it requires a preposterous suspension of disbelief to even entertain the notion that the people who dislike the right to privacy are any less driven by their own opinions of what should and should not be legal as privacy advocates are or ever were.

And incidentally, it's my personal version of Godwin's Law that as soon as you start telling people what they don't "get," you lose the argument.

I'm with Joel. I would trade parental consent for clean air and water in a heartbeat (born or unborn).

Jack - You originally said 3 judges might leave soon. After O'Connor and Rhenquist, who is #3?

Jack - You originally said 3 judges might leave soon. After O'Connor and Rhenquist, who is #3?

Stevens is pretty old, but I'm sure he's holding on for all he's worth.

All you pro-choicers can relax. Dave's right -- Stevens is 85, but he will die before he'll voluntarily leave the bench with Bush able to nominate his successor. That means the pro-Roe majority remains with Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy and Breyer.

Bojack, you said "Yes, let's turn our civil liberties over to the day-to-day fluctuations of majority opinion. It will be a great country." What did you think about the Roper decision, then?

I thought Mr. Roper liked both of the girls equally.

"Must be because I had the blues for Christmas
And I'm not feeling up to par
It increases my paranoia
Like looking in my rearview mirror
And seeing a police car...."

But you were OK with Janet Reno, right? We're going to trust fat Teddy Kennedy to do the right thing on the Judiciary Committee ?

This is what happens in a Democracy when people elect a President. Tell Howard Dean that I vote Republican, and I have had a fulltime job since I was 18. Let Rev. Al Sharpton and Hillary speak for your party, take pictures of Teresa Kerry looking at the drapes in the White House, and generally alienate most of the Country.Keep propping up spiteful talking heads like Paul Begala, James Carville and Horsehead Howard Dean and the result is that the Democrats get run out of anyplace other than NY,Kennedyville and California.

The only judge you will have is Judge Judy.The Ashcrofts are comming to get you !!! Boogedy-Boogedy!!!

You are right to say that Bush might be able to fill three total spots on the Supreme Court in the coming years. We are currently in the second-longest drought of new justices in the entire history of the court. We have to go back to 1812-1823 to get the longest gap. And that's back when there was only 7 justices on the court. I've got a neat graph over at http://www.spudart.org/supremecourt that outlines the history of appointments to the court.

Screw this! I'm moving to Australia. Call me when it's over.

From your writings, its hard to imagine any one of you folks being brave enough to leave the house to go get some illegal immigrant made coffee at Starbucks. Do you all look over your shoulders for the Gestapo? I guess when I visit Portland this summer, I will have to keep an eye on the sky, in case it falls.

Posted by Lumpy at July 1, 2005 10:31 PM

HELL, Lumpy, DEAD ON POST! An I live here.