Tuesday, October 26, 2004

THE SUPREME COURT AND THE ELECTION

Anita Campbell (Small Business Trends) did comment on my post, 4 MORE YEARS WITH BUSH? Could you tell me if you should take into account the future members of the Supreme Court when it is time to cast your vote in the Presidential election? Here is an excerpt from Charles Hurt's article, Rehnquist's illness raises stakes in election [link via TIA Daily]:

If Reagan appointee Robert Bork — whose Supreme Court nomination was rejected by the Democrat-controlled Senate in 1987 — had been confirmed, "Roe v. Wade would already have been overturned," said Mr. Neas, referring to the decision that guarantees the right to abortion.
Mr. Rushton said the prospect of Chief Justice Rehnquist's retirement frightens conservatives even more.
"People don't want a court that is going to set a whole lot of social policy or completely scrub religion from the public square," he said. "Average folks don't want the court mandating gay marriage." (The Washington Times, 10/26/04.)


Related: My post, ANTONIN SCALIA.

UPDATE 10/29/04:
Here is an excerpt from Adrian Apollo's site ObjectiveEyes.org:

There's an ill wind blowing in the halls of the beloved institution we call the Supreme Court. Within its hallowed halls, a secular sacrilege is billowing--seeping under the doors and threatening to overtake us if we do not wake up immediately and take emergency action. What's the source of the danger? Short answer: SCALIA.