(no subject)

[proximoception]

The O'Connor news has me Googling the Supreme Court members to see what this might mean. Of the five-member "conservative" group that most often carries she was/is apparently the likeliest to deviate; any replacement by Bush II will be less moderate, we can safely say. So this is overall a Bad Thing.

The replacement haggling will center on the right to abort, which Bush and the other Republicans have to attack because of the principles of their support base. Anything that actually happens to abortion would likely be very very bad for Republicans as of the next even-numbered year, though. They'll have to put up a pro-lifer for round one, let that one be knocked down, then go for someone either ambiguous or middling about it (supporting Roe v. Wade grudgingly, harsh on all the underbrush issues like late-term terminations). The Democrats, fighting for their own lives, may have to accept some Cheneyesque war/business appointee. So, a Very Bad Thing. This a fair reading?

I'm intrigued by this John Paul Stevens guy, the most frequent dissenter on the Court, put in by Ford through a Democratic Congress. A compromise, I assume originally a right-leaning moderate. Has he drifted left over time or do old-style centrists come off as practically radical in today's climate?

Comments

Bad news...

[nightspore.livejournal.com]

...much worse thatn Rhenquist. Although if he resigns too, as I assume he will, Bush will have to compromise to get two in. Stevens has been more or less consistent since Ford. Remember, Nixon was to the left of any president that came after him.