Posted on 11/15/2008 9:15:42 AM PST by IbJensen
White House scrutinyThere are growing concerns over who Barack Obama may have in mind for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, or C-FAM, is taking a look at potential Supreme Court nominees, since president-elect Obama will fill at least one chair and perhaps more. C-FAM spokesman Piero Tozzi takes a look at one strong candidate, Yale Law School dean Harold Hongju Koh. Tozzi believes he would be dangerous to American interests.
"Dean Koh [has a] penchant for using foreign law sources, and he has argued in amicus briefs and law review articles in favor of importing foreign decisions into U.S. constitutional interpretation," he explains.
Harold KohThe balance of potential candidates, Tozzi notes, tends to lean far to the left. However, he says Obama's possible choices are no reason for the pro-life and pro-family community to go into hiding. "We have got to make people aware of just how radical the president is on abortion -- and it's an opportunity, I think, for a little soul-searching and also to rally the troops."
Tozzi contends a battle is indeed ahead, but it must be fought.
The Democrats must accept all the blame for bringing us to this point.
Other than Ginsburg, who among them can’t hang on for 4 more years?
Agreed. Obama’s Court will make the Warren Court look like a bunch of John Birchers in comparison.
The Supreme Court is down the road. A question I’m interested in is how many openings are there now on the various Federal Court benches? Anybody have any info on this?
Can’t The ONE just clear the benches and fill with as many of his own as he wants? Isn’t that what Clinton did?
Stevens will surely go, one way or another. No problem there, a lib replaces a lib, the same as Ginsburg. The five we’re concerned about all seem healthy and happy to be on the court, so no problems in the near future. They may even feel inclined to take up Roe just to do it while they can.
Again, my concern is in the Federal Bench vacancies. Obama can fill those on day one. How many exist now?
Answer to title, lessee if I have this right: Pope=Catholic? Okay got it, now to arms...
Stevens is older ‘n dirt.
No, Fed Judicial appointments are for life. You may be thinking of U.S. Attorney’s, who Obama can replace, and likely will do a clean sweep of the Republican appointed ones.
Well, the other thing to look at is who he would likely be replacing. I don’t know about Scalia, but I suspect Thomas will stay, and Roberts and Alito have just started. The most likely ones to go are Stevens and Ginsberg. So, you end up with a wash, I think. The one risk is if Kennedy goes. Then, you lose a “swing vote,” and it becomes an solid anti-Constitution vote.
Clinton fired all federal prosecutors.
How many Catholics and other faiths voted for Obama? I am also Catholic and can’t understand my fellow Catholics who voted for Obama!
No doubt, and equally certain is there will not be a peep from the GOP or the media, who HOWLED when Bush fired 7.
Most of my Catholic family likely did too, unfortunately.
Kennedy would have no reason to go. From all I’ve heard he loves the job, and loves the perks and the glory. We just need him to overturn Roe, and I’m not sure he’d do that.
Response: Yes.
But the coverage of an Obama SC appointment will be so predictable. The press will coo, “Ooooh. Who will he appoint?” Then they will identify whoever it is as a “moderate,” like they actually did with Ginzburg on NPR.
Republican appointments are different. Press headlines inevitably read, “Democrats vow fight if president picks extreme nominee.”
Same old. Same old, y'all.
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.