That means Republicans control the Presidency, Congress, Senate, majority of governers, and now the Supreme Court. Do any Democrats want to argue that the American people still like their ideas more? I think we actually might have to discuss the possibility of the Democratic party being obsolete if they cannot rebound from this... it's getting ridiculous. They can't even control one single aspect of the government!!!

They don't look good in 2006 or 2008 either.

..and atm the powers that be are infatuated with the segment of their party they would be well advised to jettison.


Maybe the Democratic Party will have a schism. Its certainly possible.

I'm all for a third party displacing the Crats... either that or the Crats coming up with a platform... or at least some idea...
This should actually be easy for them due to the typical nature of back-and-forth American politics. It's really sad that they can't manage to do it. The country will suffer from their incompetence. As such maybe they should address that rather than the incompetence of the administration.
But I've been saying that for a while. Not doing any good. Maybe the loyal Crats will figure out it's time to put pressure on them and vote third party. But I'm not holding my breath.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

Unfortunately, even if Alito is confirmed, five of the nine judges will still be pro-choice and frankly, I don't trust Clarence Thomas to remain pro-life.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

Republicans controlled the SC well before this. There are only two justices on the court that were appointed by demos--Breyer and Ginsburg. Stevens was appointed by Ford, Souter and Thomas by Bush I, Kennedy and Scalia by Reagan, Roberts and Alito by Bush II. Souter and Stevens were absolutely huge disappointments, and Kennedy is pretty moderate, as well. Stevens is 85, and will probably die before he retires. Many predict Bush II will have an opportunity to appoint another SC justice before his term expires, but I don't see it. Stevens is still in decent health despite his age, and with his judicial philosophy, will likely hang on for as long as he can rather than giving Bush II an opportunity to replace him. The overall makeup of the court has not shifted very much--there are still four libs (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer), four conservatives (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito) and one moderate (Kennedy). Kennedy has consistently ruled in favor of many restrictions on abortion (parental notification, late term abortions and partial birth abortions) but has also consistently voted against Roe v Wade type challenges. Age wise, conservatives are in good shape. And three of the four liberal judges are also relatively young. But should conservatives lose the Presidential election in ’08, they will also lose an opportunity to replace Stevens with a conservative judge, which would be a dramatic shifting in the court’s philosophical makeup.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

__________________
Nobody with open eyes can any longer doubt that the danger to personal freedom comes chiefly from the left. - F.A. Hayek

Where have all the Conservatives Gone?

There is this, unless it is mistaken:

For serious policy wonks, the most important abortion buzzword is ‘Stare Decisis’ -- that is the basis upon which Clarence Thomas declined to rule against Roe v. Wade. Thomas meant that although he would have ruled against Roe v. Wade in 1973, he would not do so now because the 1973 Supreme Court ruling had been in force for a quarter century and hence has precedential weight.

http://www.issues2002.org/Background_Abortion.htm

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

When it really comes down to it, Force, would you rather see someone in the SC who follows the rules and does what he or she feels is best and within the rules set by precedent... or someone who will vote down abortion regardless of precedent or rules? The latter candidate would probably be wreckless in other areas as well.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

I agree with many rulings by liberal activist judges, but since I think that abortion kills over 1.3 million babies every year, it is obvious why this issue eclipses all others in my mind.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

There is this, unless it is mistaken:

For serious policy wonks, the most important abortion buzzword is ‘Stare Decisis’ -- that is the basis upon which Clarence Thomas declined to rule against Roe v. Wade. Thomas meant that although he would have ruled against Roe v. Wade in 1973, he would not do so now because the 1973 Supreme Court ruling had been in force for a quarter century and hence has precedential weight.

http://www.issues2002.org/Background_Abortion.htm
[/quote]


Hmmm... VERY interesting if true it seems that I was misinformed, which doesn't explain such Intellectual Magazines as The Intercollegiate Review stated for the most part the opposite unless I read into it to such a extent that I missed a point. Very interesting thanks for the info, I'll look further into it.

__________________
Nobody with open eyes can any longer doubt that the danger to personal freedom comes chiefly from the left. - F.A. Hayek

Where have all the Conservatives Gone?