Discuss Erwin Chemerinsky's Oct. 7 Op-Ed article

Barry has said he will appoint justices who will give the little guy a break. Frightening.

Dave Mulligan @ 4:27 PM PDT, Oct 7, 2008

"But this strategy may be a serious miscalculation in what is likely to be a very close election. Each candidate needs to turn out his base of support, which does care about this crucial issue." Dean Chemerinsky is a brilliant legal analyst but faulty political analyst. Obama is ahead and can't afford to alienate the middle.

Lawyer @ 3:08 PM PDT, Oct 7, 2008

A Court balanced 5 to 4 is a U.S. ruled by a single "omnipotent" individual justice. If such a court has the authority to overrule the judgment of the Legislative and Executive branches, then the Court is not co-equal to the other branches. In fact, we have a single, unelected, unaccountable ruler who decides based upon his personal biases and not upon written law. Sorry, such power was never contemplated by the framers - men much smarter than those running today's government.

Franklin Willenstein @ 2:55 PM PDT, Oct 7, 2008

There is a lawful and constitutional method of revising (amending) the Constitution. The method does not involve judges or justices. One should wonder why the court has arrogated to itself the power to alter the Constitution and why the Congress hasn't taken steps to stop its continuance. The justices possess no more intellect than the collective judgment of the elected 535 Representatives in the House and Senate. A Court balanced 5 to 4 is a U.S. ruled by a single "omnipotent" individual justice.

Franklin Willenstein @ 2:55 PM PDT, Oct 7, 2008

Pretty funny to see anyone attempting to lecture Prof. Chemerinsky about this topic.

Joshua Rogers @ 12:18 PM PDT, Oct 7, 2008

The author is misleading and needs to be corrected. Overruling Roe would not allow the government to prohibit abortion, it would take the decision away from the federal government altogether and leave this decision to the states.

Paul @ 12:05 PM PDT, Oct 7, 2008

anything by Chemerinsky makes me think of the bar exam, and I shudder.

McNeill @ 11:47 AM PDT, Oct 7, 2008

Erwin is a good liberal. But, when on Hugh Hewitt's program, is very fair. Still, he is praying that the Messiah wins the election. He intellectually thinks that liberals on SCOTUS would actually help America. That they would be a disaster because Obama is a radical socialist pacifist does not come into Erwin's consideration. I would have loved to have had a list of McCain appointees and Obama's appointees to show the voter just where the Court would go.

Glenn Koons @ 10:49 AM PDT, Oct 7, 2008

So you think John Roberts would fail in the Senate this time around? The Senate is there to keep out the unqualified, if they try to filibuster EVERY conservative judge that comes in front of them, they will alienate a lot of people. Look at the fit the Republican Party threw over the filibusters of federal judges, and tell me they won't act even more strongly to ensure the person who will overturn Roe will make it on to the court.

JK @ 10:26 AM PDT, Oct 7, 2008

I appreciate the academic restraint that Prof. Chemerinsky uses in this article. Given that Chemerinsky lists Stevens, Ginsburg, and Souter as the most likely departees from the Court, it seems that the Court can only move to the right. If Obama is elected, he can be expected to replace one of the above-named Justices with another liberal, which appointment would not affect the Court's ideological makeup. The issue of judicial appointments is actually the deciding factor in my vote for president. But I am not an undecided swing voter; so, Prof. Chemerinsky is probably right about the reason the candidates are not highlighting this issue.

Dan Rhoads @ 10:24 AM PDT, Oct 7, 2008

Next