Posted on 05/08/2009 10:55:54 AM PDT by nickcarraway
Byron “Whizzer” White was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Kennedy in 1962. By current standards, he would be considered a far-right conservative. He dissented in both Miranda and Roe, calling the latter “an exercise in raw judicial power,” while he authored the majority opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick, which upheld a Georgia anti-sodomy law.
White resigned from the Supreme Court in 1993, the first year of Bill Clinton’s presidency. White could have allowed a Republican president to name his successor by resigning during George H.W. Bush’s presidency or holding out until George W. Bush’s presidency, which would have maintained the court’s ideological balance. Instead, he followed the tradition of allowing a president of the political party that appointed him to replace him. His successor? Uber-liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which has tipped the court to the left.
David Souter, in contrast, timed his resignation to prevent a president of the political party that appointed him from replacing him, resigning within months of Democrat Barack Obama becoming president.
This really should come as no surprise, because the jurisprudence of David Souter has been a jurisprudence of politics. When it came to abortion, stare decisis was all important, but when it came to whether there is a constitutional right to homosexual sex, stare decisis mattered not one bit.
Unlike Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who reach liberal as well as conservative results – for example, upholding flag burning and against limits on punitive damages – Souter invariably came out in favor of the liberal result. For example, against gun rights, property rights, the death penalty. For terrorist rights, race-based school admission policies, the regulation of political speech.
Anyone who thinks that President Obama is going to nominate a moderate to replace Souter, in deference to his ambitious legislative agenda, is kidding himself. Obama is as megalomaniacal about fundamentally changing America as Ahab was about getting Moby Dick. The “fierce urgency of now” is not just a campaign slogan. Obama understands that he has a small window of opportunity to effect the dramatic changes he seeks.
A man who has the ambition and audacity to attempt to simultaneously federalize health care, higher education and energy is not going to blink at adding the confirmation of a far-left judicial activist to his to-do list. No, Obama is going to swing for the fences with Souter’s replacement.
My guess is that Obama will nominate his friend Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, whose ratings have sunk like a stone. He can bail out a buddy, while moving the Supreme Court even further to the left. Does it get any better than that?
Senate Republicans should attempt to filibuster, not because they will succeed in blocking whomever Obama nominates — they won’t — but because it will give Republicans a chance to seize the bully pulpit from Obama, albeit if only for a short while. They should make the case that Obama’s far-left Supreme Court nominee is just one part of the Obama agenda to make America a far-left country.
Souter continues to be a great disappointment.
Rumors of his moderation were exaggerated
The very worst mistake that the milquetoast Bush Snr ever made, and that’s saying something.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
No problem here. He sneaked in as a Republican, ruled as a liberal and came out a liber.
Coupe deVal Patrick’s ratings have sunk like a stone because he is too liberal - even for liberal Massachusetts.
His latest boondoggle is to give free cars to people on welfare so they can drive to job interviews and to work. That’s right, a free car PLUS car insurance, AAA coverage, and repairs. If they won’t find a job they still keep their car. Look for Aunt Zatootie and Uncle Obama to be driving around in tax-payer supplied and insured cars.
If Souter had resigned any time after November 2006, the Democrats would probably have kept the seat vacant rather than to allow Bush to name a replacement. At best Bush might have been able to name a “moderate” (less extreme liberal) justice (which of course might have been better than whoever will get the seat now).
Filbusters of judicial nominees are unconstitutional. While I’m scared to death about who Obama will appoint, elctions have consequences and all we can hope for is that all Republicans vote no.
Obama is biting off more than he can chew.
His milquetoast son would have done the same if we'd let him.
Well, maybe. But the Dems started the street fight. Repubs have been too "civil" (cowardly?) to bloody their knuckles, and we all live with the results.
If a filibuster is what it takes to even things up a bit, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Otherwise, the actions of Democrats for decades will continue to have no adverse consequences for them.
Was Sunnunu and Rudman that traitorous?
I can understand mistakes such as Kennedy and O’Conner. For the life of me, I cannot understand how Souter was appointed.
What is your authority for stating that such filibusters would be unconstitutional? Not that I am disputing you, you probably are right. I would just like to know your authority for your statement.
He had almost no record, so the Democrats were scared that Republicans were selling them a bill of goods, but unfortunately the Pubbies, some of whom were assuring others that he was a stealth uber-conservative, were selling themselves one.
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.