Posted on 11/18/2007 9:27:30 AM PST by enough_idiocy
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.