(AP) Kerry Against Bush Majority on High Court

[DJcairo]

Kerry against Bush majority on high court

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press
Last updated: 12:45 p.m., Friday, October 3, 2003

WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry raised concerns on Friday that a second term for President Bush would lead to the appointment of conservative Supreme Court justices who would set back civil rights in America.
In a speech to the National Council of Negro Women, Kerry noted that six of the nine justices on the court will be over 70 by the end of the next term. He said it's likely some will retire, giving the president elected next year the power to appoint a new majority.

He said Bush has demonstrated "an unwavering commitment to refashioning the court in the ideological image of the far right."

"He's made judicial nominations red meat for the right wing, hoping the rest of the people aren't paying attention," he said three days before the court opens a new term.

Kerry said a Bush majority on the court could mean restrictions on affirmative action, hate crimes, abortion rights, the right to privacy and voting rights.

"If I am elected president, I will appoint justices with a broad understanding of American life today without drawing from any ideology, for the sake of ideology, people who have a commitment to diversity, fairness and equality," he said.

Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, repeated his pledge to attempt to block the nomination of any Supreme court nominee who would threaten those rights.

Democrats already have filibustered three of President Bush's nominees, one of whom dropped out after the GOP failed to break the blockade, and are threatening to filibuster a fourth.

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=176144&newsdate=10/3/2003&BCCode=BNNATION

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. As the 2000 selection showed, there is no bigger issue.

[genius]

2. We need a Pres who understands the criminal justice system

We need to stop right wing appoinments when it comes to criminal defense issues. The decisons we are losing are those based on the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments. Based on Dean's record, I expect his appointments to be much worse than Bush's in these areas and so I cannot support him under any circumstances. Unless, we want to wind up in the most oppressive society in history, we must support a Democrat who understands the fact that most criminal defendants are innocent and who understands the need for their rights to be protected and we must actively oppose any candidate who doesn't understand this. So far every candidate but Dean does have this understanding.

[Padraig18]

3. Umm

I'll pass on the Dean part of your post, and comment on the "most criminal defendants are innocent" part; while they are LEGALLY innocent until proven guilty, it is absurd in the extreme to believe that they are FACTUALLY innocent. The *vast majority* of criminal defendants have, in fact, committed a crime.

Huge difference.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. I hope you won't be serving on any juries soon

[Meshuga]

5. Are you trying to...

avoid jury duty?

[ButterflyBlood]

7. you make a valid point but then try to blame Dean

blah blah blah. your hatred of Dean is just as irrational and idiotic as the Freepers hatred of Clinton.

[BushGone04]

9. I disagree with you on a few points

First, Dean's nominations would definitely not be worse than Bush's. Bush, let's not forget, has made it quite clear that he'd like Scalia to be Chief Justice after Rehnquist retires. Personally, "Justice Scalia" is enough of an oxymoron for me; "Chief Justice Scalia" might be more than I could take. In any case, Dean would not nominate the right-wing, hanging-judge ideologues that we can be assured of getting with four more years of Bush.

Second, it is factually incorrect to say that most criminal defendants are innocent. The police aren't perfect and neither is our justice system, and so innocent people do sometimes come up for trial and even get convicted (a few, God forbid, have probably been executed). But still, it is completely incorrect to say most defendants are factually innocent, when in fact the majority are factually guilty and found to be so by juries of their peers. Also, for the record, I think every Democrat in this race (every Democrat period, really) understands that defendant's rights need to be protected, and I have every confidence that, if elected, Dean would keep this in mind.

Finally, let's try to keep the hysterical exaggeration to a minimum, if we could. "Most oppressive state in history?" Look, President Bush is a poor president on pretty much every issue, with criminal justice being high on the list of things he's bad on. But nothing in America now compares to the Nazis in Germany, the Stalinist regime in Russia, and many other MUCH more oppressive states throughout history. We're not in the most oppressive state in history now, and we certainly won't be if we elect Dean in 2004.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. Why disagree with a 'point' that no one has made?

"Second, it is factually incorrect to say that most criminal defendants are innocent. "

But no one has said that. Your understanding of what the presumption of innocence means appears to be as deep as Dean's.

Reporter Peter Freyne, now one of Dean's great supporters, asked his readers at the time to "Remember the guy who once said 95 percent of people charged with crimes are guilty anyway so why should the state spend money on providing them with lawyers?"
http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs08292003.html

BTW, I have personally confirmed this quote with Mr. Freyne.

More on Dean's record in this area:
http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/33681.html
http://rutlandherald.com/Archive/Articles/Article/31792

Finally, we are not faced with a choice between Bush and Dean. We are facing a choice between Clark, Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, Graham, Kerry, Kucinich, Lieberman, Mosely Braun, and Sharpton. After we make that choice, we will go on to beat Bush.

[BushGone04]

13. Read post #2

"Unless, we want to wind up in the most oppressive society in history, we must support a Democrat who understands the fact that most criminal defendants are innocent"

So, yes, someone did say that. I understand that every defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty; I am just saying that most DO eventually get proven guilty. I have never, ever thought anything remotely resembling that comment about the state not needing to pay for defense lawyers.

Second, you seem to think I'm a Dean supporter. I'm not- look at the icon to your left there. I just don't think Dean is the Antichrist, and I think he'd be better on issues of criminal justice than Bush. I agree with you ENIRELY that we need to choose our nominee before we worry about Bush, and I think that, in this area, as in most every other, Kerry would be superior to Dean. However, the original poster (genius) sais flat-out that Dean's judicial nominees would be worse than Bush's. I thought that was wrong, and still do.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. I missed that.

And of course it is just as wrong to assert that most criminal defendants are innocent as it is to assert that most are guilty. Are most guilty or innocent? -- we just can't know -- we must rely on the presumption of innocence. Even conviction rates would not give us the true answer because of all the people arrested -- rightly or wrongly -- by the police and then released without ever going to trial, cases being dismissed or ended without a verdict -- and of course it is possible to be convicted, even when innocent.

I consider the presumption of innocence to be one of the bedrock principles that protect us against oppressive state power, so it is a particularly important issue for me.

I also agree with you that it is wrong to frame this question as "would Dean's judicial nominees be better or worse than Bush's" -- instead I would look at each Democratic candidates record and statements and ask: "Is this the person I want nominating judges to the Federal bench?"

[BushGone04]

18. Fair enough

You're right that we can't know for sure whether most defendants are guilty or innocent; however, I my guess would be that the majority of defendants that come to trial are guilty.

I agree that the presumption of innocence is absolutely one of the bedrock principles of our justice system, but we also need to keep in mind that a great deal (even if not a majority) of defendants are, in fact, guilty. On the whole, actually, I think our justice system does a pretty good job of this. Of course there are mistakes, and those are unfortunate, but pretty much unavoidable until humans become infallible. On a side note, that's also a big reason why we need to get rid of the death penalty- those human mistakes can never be fixed.

I'd also agree that we should look at each candidate and decide if we'd like them to be nominating judges. The original poster just made an accusation against Dean that I found ridiculous, and I wanted to respond to that. I'd be much happier with any of our candidates nominating judges than I am with Bush, but given my choice between the 10, I'd love to see Kerry doing it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. "need to keep in mind"

"we also need to keep in mind that a great deal (even if not a majority) of defendants are, in fact, guilty"

I just don't agree that we should keep that in mind.

First of all, it is based on an unfounded assumption.
Second, I don't see you could really have a presumption of innocence if you are simultaneously presuming that "a great deal (even if not a majority) of defendants are, in fact, guilty".
Third, when you say "we also need to keep in mind that a great deal (even if not a majority) of defendants are, in fact, guilty", I must ask, why? What do we gain by keeping this in mind? All I can see that we gain is making it harder to really presume innocence.


Of course humans are infallible no system humans create can be perfect. All the more reason to be rigorous in the application of our guiding principles.

[BushGone04]

20. I really think

You're making more out of my comments than I had intended. Clearly, we don't want jurors, in their deliberations, thinking "Well, most defendants are guilty, so this guy must be too." I was simply responding to an inaccurate statement made a few posts up, and saying that, although it can't be statistically proven, more defendants are guilty than innocent. It's an assumption, yes, but I think it's one grounded in common sense.

[sandnsea]

15. Don't quite agree

First, we need a President who believes that criminal defense and due process is important because it is the only chance an innocent person has to prove their innocence. And these days, you do sort of have to prove your innocence. Because of some of Dean's statements, his approach to criminal justice is concerning.

However, I can't imagine him nominating judges worse than Bush. That's just a bit too much, to say the least.

[DrFunkenstein]

22. Dean Worries Me Over Gun Laws and the Death Penalty

I don't want a big 2nd amendment "state's rights" guy on the Supreme Court, nor anyone that would support the death penalty for American citizens.

I'm not worried about the second part too much, because I don't think Dean would ultimately force the issue, but the first part does concern me. I realize that being a NRA buddy sounds good on the campaign trail, but it has no place on our Supreme Court.

[JohnKleeb]

23. Kerry opposes it right?

I remember this being a factor in making him my second choice. BTW those two particularly the latter concern me as well.

[DavidDvorkin]

6. If Kerry loses the nomination

I hope this means he'll still strongly and openly support the Democratic nominee. Whoever that happens to be.

[JI7]

8. of course he will

kerry is a true democrat with a lifetime record to show for it and as ugly as the primaries may get, he knows who the real enemy is.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. What a dumb comment.

Besides what does that have to do with the subject at hand?

[curse10]

11. What does this have to do with the article?

:eyes:

[sandnsea]

14. "These kids are not transferable"

"I want to get this nomination, and if I don't...these kids are not transferable," Dean said of his cadre of campaign supporters. "I can't just go out and say, 'Okay, so I didn't win the nomination, so go ahead and vote for the Democrats.' They're not going to suddenly just go away. That's not gonna happen."

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/000663.html

John Kerry has never said anything like this, in fact, no other candidate has ever said anything like this. If you're concerned about whether someone is going to support the eventual Democratic nominee, the only one to worry about is Howard Dean.

[Pez]

21. woo doggies

'Okay, so I didn't win the nomination, so go ahead and vote for the Democrats.'

why isn't he running as an independent? it would make much more sense; he would avoid all those pesky "issues"... issues...

[Loyal]

16. Good for Kerry

:)