Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Didn't rehnquist dissent in Roe itself? Not that he'll be around when the next opportunity arises.
How will Bush not get to appoint anyone? Are you saying that the Chief's seat will remain vacant for 4 years? I don't see that happening. As obstructionist at the Dems are and as willfully blind to the lack of a sufficient majority that the R's are, Rehnquist's successor will be sworn in by Thanksgiving of this year. And Bush will get at least one more appointment--either Stevens or O'Connor (or both) will need replacing in 2006 or 2007.
|
Of course the court has changed since Casey (1992??), but I seem to recall a count that had Kennedy being the determining factor. And not being all that committed to what he was doing.
Basically, some people have boiled his logic down to ...if we announce that Roe was a mistake, we'll look stoopid. Nevertheles, I don't even recall who was who in Casey. A long time ago.
