We have the most mental illness because we have the most shrinks who, if they had their way, would make everyone a patient, concocting symptoms to make us all insane by definition.

Judicial activism is a dangerous thing. The question is do conservatives really want a non-activist judiciary, or do they want a conservative activist judiciary that will spend the next 70 years undoing the liberal judicial activism of the last 70?

Most of those decisions were made by the ultraliberal wing of the court more than 30 years ago. Specifically Hugo Black (1937-71), William O. Douglas (1939-75), William Brennan (1956-90), Thurgood Marshall (1968-91) and Harry Blackmun (1970-94). Chief Justice Earl Warren (1953-69) had no chance to win any conservative votes so he converted and became as liberal as Black and Douglas. Chief Justice Warren Burger (1969-86) wanted to be on the winning side so much he often witheld his vote until it was obvious who would win. When Blackmun joined the court people expected him to follow Burger, but he found no leadership there and within 2 years was with the liberals. Lewis Powell (1972-87) replaced Black, and was often the fifth vote for the liberal agenda. If their argument had any real basis in law the moderates at the time (Potter Stewart 58-81 and Byron White 62-93) would be persuaded and the chief would join. Rehnquist (1972-) often stood alone with arguments that rarely won converts. When Stevens replaced Douglas it meant that the liberals had to make sense to win. O'Connor replaced Stewart and like him voted with the law. When Burger retired, Rehnquist was elevated to chief and Scalia joined. Those 2 and Thomas since he replaced Marshall in 91 have voted together. What I just learned is that those 3 are as willing to write laws from the right as the others were from the left. Every time they try though, they lose likely votes from O'Connor, Stevens, Kennedy  or Souter, making it appear that the liberals still dominate when in fact the moderates are protecting us.

Thanks for welcoming me. I was in another chat room for a few months. Suddenly it downsized. I thought I reregistered but looked at the new topics and saw only the theologians there. I'm not computer savvy and can only get into it through my mailbox. When they didn't send any more emails I was left out. It was a load off my mind for awhile, but the Supreme Court has become an obsession and I have to talk about it. An hour before the name of the nominee was released I recorded a tape with the above prediction, the week before a long essay tracing the court back nearly 100 years. It's amazing how your opinion changes when you study something that closely.

Hi, I just joined, mainly because I'm bursting at the seams to talk to people about the Supreme Court. I have comments about  scattered posts. Someone said Rehnquist should resign. No one commented. He was in favor of both Ten Commandments displays. Did you mean that Rehnquist is a bizarre right-wing conservative and a nicer person with the same opinions would be better, or do you think he's the liberal responsible for the bad decisions? Why don't Christians unite and protest all the pagan goddesses and icons on our seals and currency? They bother me, or does the presence of such religious symbols of other faiths protect things like the Ten Commandments? Can anyone answer justice Stevens' comment: "If 'Thou shalt have no other Gods before me' doesn't constitute the establishment of a religion..." what would? As for Jefferson, we must understand him in context. He was ambassador to France when the Constitution was written, suggested that a bill of rights be added (but didn't write it) and found his will repeatedly overruled by Chief Justice John Marshall. Marshall was Jefferson's cousin and life-long enemy and was appointed months before Jefferson took office by John Adams, who had just lost to Jefferson. Adams named as many judges as he could before he left office, and they continued to rule against Jefferson's policies. The presidency was not yet terribly strong in those days, and Marshall was still there when Jefferson wrote those letters. Marshall's party was out of existence by 1820 and our best president James Monroe was reelected unopposed. Jefferson was Unitarian. He didn't want anyone forcing him to go to church, but knew a neutral religious option (availability of the Bible) was good for all.  

O'connor plans to stay until her replacement is sworn in, so 4-4 votes are not a big issue yet. I predict the Senate will delay into October and ultimately reject Roberts. I also think Bush wants them to so they will seem vicious and petty and endanger their jobs. Any Republican speaking against Roberts will become a target for a primary challenge next time. Also, the longer this takes, the greater the possibility that another justice will die or become unable to continue. When there are 2 nominees being considered at the same time, one gets a free walk (like Rehnquist in '71 and Scalia in '86.)

Good essay, but don't get too excited about the future. Bush can't find someone to the right of Rehnquist, and if Roberts is a right-wing ideologue who agrees with Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas on radical things they'll still lose 5-4 in any big pronouncement. Stevens has been dubbed "liberal" for disagreeing with Rehnquist, but he isn't. You'll notice that no radical left-wing legislation has come from the court for over 20 years, because the (at present 4) moderates won't agree with anything radical. Unless Bush gets to replace Kennedy, Ginsburg or Breyer, that won't change soon.