Posted on 11/18/2007 9:27:30 AM PST by enough_idiocy
Today the U.S. Supreme Court begins its second full term since President Bush’s appointments of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito. Given the complaints made by many on the left and in the press about the Court’s alleged “radical turn to the right” last year, now is a good time to consider how the Court ought to decide its constitutional cases.
This question is made all the more urgent by the fact that on Jan. 20, 2009, six of the nine current justices will be over the age of 70, an age at which many people either retire or begin to wind down their affairs. There is thus a very real possibility that the next president could appoint as many as four justices in his or her first term alone. We may be getting ready for the biggest turnover in the membership of the Supreme Court since Richard Nixon’s election in 1968 brought the Warren Court to an end.
I submit that the proper basis on which we should evaluate the Court’s performance in this term and in the future is not whether it reaches “conservative” or “liberal” results in constitutional cases, but whether it reaches results that are faithful to the Constitution as written and understood at the time of its adoption. Likewise, the test for presidential candidates on the judiciary should be whether they can be trusted to nominate Justices who will follow our written Constitution.
The belief that judges and Justices should decide constitutional cases on this basis is known in academic circles as “originalism.” This approach may seem so obvious that it should hardly need a name, let alone a defense.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
I doubt it, in the next 5 years there will be no more than 2 SCOTUS appointments.
If I were any of the conservative judges, I would put off retiring for four years, if Hillary is elected President. Because you know if Hillary is elected, she won’t be re-elected.
John Stevens (90 years old)and Ginsburg (ailing health?) will retire. Others are in good health and will stay put.
Hillary Clinton will not be elected President, she simply is too unlikeable to be elected.
If Hillary Clinton is the one who appoints for justices to the Supreme Court ... it will guaranty the end of the American Republic — probably forever.
::::::
It has always been the tyrannical dream of the Clinton mob to take control of America through the judiciary. You can bet that with Hitlery in the Oval Office and a Socialist congress, the SCOTUS would become nothing more than an advocacy group for hard Socialism and the end of individual freedoms in America — they are already doing a pretty good job of that as it is (First and Fifth Amendment attacks).
I doubt it, in the next 5 years there will be no more than 2 SCOTUS appointments.
and if the piaps appoints the replacements....God save the republic!!!
Agreed. And that's reason enough for me to vote for the GOP candidate next November. Whether I have issues with him or not.
Not really, Stevens and Ginsburg are very left wing already so no gain there for the left wing lunatics if they are replaced by 2 appointees by a left wing President, but again the next President will be Republican so I am not concerned.
That’s why we need a Republican nominee that can be trusted to appoint conservative justices to the courts rather than one that merely makes empty promises to.
I sure hope you’re right.
Fraudulent voters love her - cheaters recognize their own. She will win unless this constituency can be severely limited.
“Not really, Stevens and Ginsburg are very left wing already so no gain there for the left wing lunatics if they are replaced by 2 appointees by a left wing President, but again the next President will be Republican so I am not concerned.”
I hope you’re right.
There are so many reason for us to win.
Fraud is always an issue in every election and in 2008 it is not going to be worse than 2004 or 2000.
She may pull a Venezuela. She is definitely a class warfare specialist.
I would trust Bush with the Patriot Act powers, but never a person like Hillary Rodham.
THIS is what the fight is all about and why this election is going to be a nasty street brawl.
The Dems know that they have much to lose for generations to come if they lose the courts.
I knew the same thing about Slick Willie.
Never underestimate the stupidity of our people.
I had a $20 bet that Bubba wouldn’t have been re-elected. I lost!
In all fairness, I’m not sure 1996 is a fair comparison to 2008. The internet was still in its infancy (relatively) and Bill Clinton wanted to take credit for the late 90s boom, despite the fact that him being President had nothing to do with the stock market boom and the increasing spread of high-technology into homes all across America.
Furthermore, the country was not a disaster after his first term, most likely due to the Republican Congress at the time. On the other hand, Hillary would destroy too much in just four years that I doubt she would be rewarded with another four.
In addition, whether we take back the House and Senate in 2008 would also be a good indicator of what may happen in ‘12.
They say that every election cycle and it never happens.
Even a justice picked by a RINO may not be as bad as the radical leftists Hillary will pick (her choices will probably be vetted by the National Lawyers Guild).
There are already 4 justices over the age of 70, with 2 more close behind:
Stevens, 87 (born 4-20-20)
Ginsburg, 74 (born 3-15-33)
Scalia, 71 (born 3-11-36)
Kennedy, 71 (born 7-23-36)
Breyer, 69 (born 8-15-38)
Souter, 68 (born 9-17-39)
Even if Hillary only gets a couple of vacancies in her first term, she could have five or six by the end of 8 years.
Or until the next revolution, whichever comes first.
David Souter and John Paul Steven suggest otherwise. And, Giuliani is far bigger RINO than Bush 41.
The only chance at an improvement on the courts is a nominee other than Giuliani.
In the next 8 years, 4 appointments are not out of the question at all.
Souter should be marked as a likely retirement. Word is he is bored as heck on SCOTUS and is holding out for a new POTUS.
Souter (bored).
SCOTUS ping
Has anyone ever thought Kennedy may retire after his 20th anniversary passes in February?
There won’t be any retirements until 2009. That’s why the next election is so important.
The problem is that replacing two old liberals with two young liberals means another 40 years with those two liberal seats, which it’d be nice to pick up now.
There may not be any retirements but Stevens is 87. If I were Bush I would privately already have all my cards assembled for the mother of all appointment battles, just in case. If he played his cards right he could force an appointment through as late as June and time would be of the essence.
If that happens, Bush will have to choose with great care. Someone who is soft-spoken and uncontroversial, but not another Harry Blackman or David Souter in waiting. And there are ways to check up that didn’t exist back in those days.
Bush might be able to coax some dems by picking an older nominee, perhaps someone in their low- to mid-60s. Someone conservative, older, but not controversial, as you say.
I think the possibility of Bush getting another good justice confirmed is nil. He might just as well name Thomas Sowell to a recess appointment, and wait for the outcome of the election.
I’m not so sure. The Senate would find the pressure quite high by stalling a SCOTUS seat for six months or more. He’d have to play his cards right for sure.
The 800 pound gorilla in the room is that the Democrats are on the defensive in SCOTUS because their solid four justices are all older than Clarence Thomas, Alito, and Roberts, and most of them are older than Scalia. It would be a surprise if the next opening were not caused by retirement (or otherwise) of a member of the liberal wing of the court. And right now for practical purposes Justice Kennedy is SCOTUS. One more nomination like Thomas or Alito or Roberts, and the Democrats will have to convince not only Justice Kennedy but another, more conservative, justice in order to prevail.I don't consider that a mere matter of a little pressure from Republicans will convince the Senate Democrats to allow that to happen if they have any choice at all. And indeed the Republicans in the Senate, with people like Arlen Spector and John McCain in their number, are squishy enough that I can't imagine them fighting that battle successfully. It would be hard enough in the next term, even with a conservative POTUS and with a Republican pickup of a seat in the Senate, which seems unlikely, to get a good justice seated. Of course, if it got to where two of the liberal justices resigned, SCOTUS would become unambiguously conservative even if the Democrats prevented the vacancies from being filled indefinitely.
Given that at present he is one of the most important people in America because he can get four people on SCOTUS to agree with him and make a majority just about every time. He is practically a one-man judicial branch. That can't be boring.The general point, tho, is that with medical advances we may be approaching "escape velocity" where the life expectancy of people will increase by a year, every year - and our grandchildren could see SCOTUS justices getting amazingly geriatric. We really ought to consider reducing SCOTUS terms from "good behavior" down to 18 years. So that each POTUS would predictably nominate two justices per term. Or perhaps SCOTUS should be increased to 11 justices to allow the same attrition rate after each justice had served 22 years. Otherwise every two-term POTUS, by naming 4 justices, would name almost half the court.
"Many people," yes. Emperors, no. Like our Lords and Masters in Congress, the Supremes stay far too long. They become addicted to power.
I've not picked a Presidential candidate yet -- having never voted in a primary that made a difference, I've given up worrying about them -- but the fact that Fred Thompson walked away from a safe Senate seat is a plus in my book.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.