Why a McCain Win May Be Bad for GOP, Good for Democrats

Real Clear Politics ^ | 13 June 2008 | Stuart Rothenberg

[shrinkermd]

Republicans and conservatives are rallying behind Sen. John McCain's White House bid, but not because they are so enamored with him or his agenda. Instead, their loyalty is based on their perception that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama as president, particularly with large Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress, would be utterly disastrous.

Regardless of whether you agree with them about the results of a Democratic presidential victory later this year, a McCain victory might produce its own series of domino-like events that ultimately might hurt the Grand Old Party.

...I don't necessarily agree with Stewart that a McCain victory in November would lead to the "eradication" of the GOP, but it's easy to see how a McCain presidency could end up being a nightmare for Republicans.

In the worst-case scenario, a McCain victory in November could likely lead to a Republican bloodletting that would tear apart the GOP well before 2012, contribute to another good Democratic election in 2010 and hand Democrats such a strong advantage during redistricting that Republicans wouldn't be able to recover for years.

[WOSG]

You are right about electing judges. Here in Texas we have an elected Texas Supreme Court and it is reliably conservative.

[BillyBoy]

>> You are right about electing judges. Here in Texas we have an elected Texas Supreme Court and it is reliably conservative. <<

Well, there you go. Having an elected SC works fine in Illinois and Texas. No "stealth liberals" making it past the primary here. Instead of going the route that alot of freepers want and having more govenrment control over our lives via an appointed U.S. Senate, maybe we should go the opposite route and allow more freedom via letting the people pick the SC justices. I think the voters could have done better than Souter, Stevens, Kennedy, etc. Then we'd have a good chance of getting a Republican on the court whether Obama or McCain is the next President -- and for those that don't "trust McCain" on this, it's out of his hands.

And here's the icing on the cake: based on the way the federal circuit is set up and what states each judge on the USSC "represents" (I'm ignoring the DC and at-large circuits, both represented by Roberts), Clinton appointee Steven Breyer would most likely be toast if he had to face the voters of his circuit. (Souter would probably lose too, but he ALREADY votes like a RAT so there would be no idealogical shift if he lost) The states they represent are:

KENNEDY (R)
California
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
Idaho
Arizona
Montana
Alaska
Hawaii

BREYER (D)
Utah
Wyoming
Colorado
New Mexico
Kansas
Oklaholma

ALITO (R)
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Iowa
Missouri
Arkansas

STEVENS (RINO)
Illinois
Indiana
Wisconsin

ROBERTS (R)
Michigan
Ohio
Kentucky
Tennessee

SCALIA (R)
Texas
Louisiana
Mississippi

GINSBURG (D)
New York
Pennsyvania
Deleware

THOMAS (R)
West Virgina
Virgina
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Alabama
Florida

SOUTER (RINO)
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Mass.
Conn.
Rhode Island

[fieldmarshaldj]

Only problem here is how you’d even go about electing U.S. Supreme Court members. Running Presidential races is bad enough, but running judicial contests nationally would be a nightmare. They’d have to raise obscene amounts of money in their capacity as Justices, and I can’t see that being a good thing. Another alternative would be dividing the country into 9 distinct districts and electing a candidate from each, but you’d still have the situation with the fundraising. Perhaps a better alternative would be requiring members to retire at 75 (in the case of Stevens, he’d would’ve been compelled to have stepped down in 1995 — interesting how the liberal media never talks much about a nearly 90 year old, senile moonbat making crucial decisions effecting our country. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Stevens is the oldest SCOTUS member EVER).

If I were President, I’d line the court with strict Constructionist 30-somethings, assuring we’d have solid control of the court for half-a-century.

[fieldmarshaldj]

You can look up some of my posts on the subject, but I stridently disagree leftist RINOs were the only kinds of Republicans MA could elect. MA did vote for Reagan, it voted for the Conservative Ed King, so that’s nonsense. MA voted for McGovern because of a unique visceral dislike for Nixon that ran counter to the rest of the nation. And lastly, I was specifically addressing the situation from 1990-2006 in the state, and yes, it absolutely is the fault of Weld/*omney. A perfect example of what happens when you have Democrat agents invading the GOP and destroying it from within (and some here make the argument McCain could very well be one of those — he has the potential to send the GOP to 1/3rd of Congress by 2010).

As for Vermont, its Republicans opted to go left instead of right (beginning in the 1950s when it really mattered — look up my posts on Consuelo Bailey, a legendary Conservative GOP officeholder in the state who was denied the Governorship less because of her gender and more because she wasn’t a liberal) and ended up with predictable results. The state was also invaded by liberals from other states, too (the Socialist Senator being an example of that). The Dems made a breakthough there at the federal level as long ago as 1958 when they elected the ultraleftist William Meyer (but booted him after a single term). Meyer’s radical envirokook ultrahippy son moved down here to my city some time ago. The current RINO Governor there has done little to stem the erosion of the party in the legislature after Mad Howie managed to drive one body (House) back to the GOP.

[fieldmarshaldj]

You’d have to reconfigure those districts based on population. They’re not exactly “fairly” drawn as it is.

[Let's Roll]

And if the dims win, they will see to it that their pre-programmed electronic voting wins every election from then on. If there are any elections held after they give our country to mexico or the muzzies.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I think he will end up exactly like Ford. When Stevens dies, he appoints a liberal. The rodent Senate won’t allow anything different. McCain has always demonstrated more of a willingness to fight the right rather than fight for what IS right and going along to get along with the rodents. I think Obama’s appointments and McCain’s (at least to SCOTUS) will be effectively identical.

[BillyBoy]

This would require a consitutional amendment, but here's an idea of how an elected Supreme Court would function:

All nine judges would be directly elected by the voters of their circuit (made up of several states) by popular vote. They would have to be at least 35 but no more than 75 years of age, and could serve a maximum of three 10-year terms. In the event that one of the judges died, resigned, was impeached, etc. before the next general election, the President could appoint (with Senate apporval) a replacement to temporarily fill out the judge's term (just like the current system), however, this judge would only serve until the next election and then have to be elected in his own right (i.e. if Justice Stevens died tomarrow and Bush appointed Harriet Miers to fill the vacancy, she would face the voters in November 2008. If Obama appointed Judge Moonbat to fill a vacancy in Jan. 2009, he would face the voters in November 2010). Very simular to Senate vacancies now.

As before, if the Chief Justice retired, resigned, was impeached (or, with the new system, voted out of office), the President could appoint a new chief justice by choosing amongst the current justices OR appointing someone new to the court. Again, this new Chief Justice would have to face the voters during a regular election. Just like the Speaker of the House or Senate President, his election would be no different than any other judge but he could be defeated rather than serve for life. As before, the Chief Justice does not have to from the majority party of the court. Also as before, the justice next-highest in seniority would serve as acting Chief until a new one was appointed/elected.

Unlike the current system, judges would be nominated by and run under party lines, just as the President and Congress does. Judges could run as "Independant" but would probably have the same success as today's "Independant" candidates for Congress and President do. Likewise, you could theoretically elected Libertarians, Greens, and other third parties to the SC, but in all likelihood the court would consist solely of Republicans and Democrats.

As they would have to run in primary elections, Judges would have to be frank with voters about their judicial philoposhy and raise a great deal of money to conduct a campaign in 3-8 states, and would likely lose the primary if they were supporting the other side's agenda, as is the case with Illinois Supreme Court judges today.

I would require future judges to reside in the judicial circuit they are elected from (that way we have a SC reflecting each region of the US), but Justices currently in office when this amendment was adapted would be exempt from the rule, in much the way same way Truman was exempt from the term limits amendment. Future Presidents could not have "Minnesota twins", or a Rehnquist-O'Connor duo from Arizona, or two Italian-Catholics from New Jersey, etc. Judges could move their residency within 30 days if they wished to stand for election in another circuit. The At-Large and D.C. Circuits would continue to exist, but they would have no representation on the SC, just on the U.S. Court of Appeals.

[eyedigress]

Based on his recent response on Habeas Corpus for Gitmo, I will respectfully disagree.

[BillyBoy]

>> You’d have to reconfigure those districts based on population. They’re not exactly “fairly” drawn as it is. <<

Not necessarily. The U.S. House is based on population, the U.S. Senate is based on equal power of all 50 states. Both bodies are popularly-elected. You could replace an appointed court with an elected court and keep the current federal circuit districts completely intact, as long as you had provisions for all nine judges to run in at least one of them.

BTW, this would force the judges to "ride the circuit" and meet with the locals courts in their district, which they used to do regularly in the 19th century but currently ignore "their" constituency.

They'd probably be a push to redraw the map anyway, just because the current districts are so uneven (the western states get their own giant district with about 12 states including California).

But I'd push for the district lines to be redrawn so they each hold several states but are more-or-less equal in area (square miles) of the continental USA. Not sure what we'd do with Alaska and Hawaii though...

[BillyBoy]

>> Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Stevens is the oldest SCOTUS member EVER). <<

Stevens is 88, I think the oldest ever was Oliver Wendell Holmes who retired at age 91. But in terms of sheer "service" on the court, I bet Stevens has been a justice longer than Holmes.

You're right that a nationally election U.S. Supreme Court would likely cause them to spend obscene amounts of money though. I don't think they should be elected "at large" across the entire country like the President, but certainly they'd be conducting campaigns in several states at once. (the main flaw here is some unqualified zillionaire Oberweis/Huffington type in the legal community could win the primary and then lose to a RAT in the general)

I believe, interesting enough, that the 2004 campaign we had in my state for Illinois Supreme Court, 5th District, was the most expensive campaign for a state office in Illinois history, moreso than any Governor's race. But in the end, what matters is the good guy won, and if Blago had appointed someome to our court instead, he simply would have tossed a socialist sock-puppet into that seat for life.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I was considering the process for electing the Chief Justice, but that could merely be left up to the court members themselves to do (as it is in many states). Selecting a member to serve in that position every 4 years (it could also be the seniormost member of the ideological majority on the court as well).

Still, I doubt we’d ever go to an elective SCOTUS. I think the biggest impediment is the problems involving fundraising (which could potentially put members in a conflict of interest situation) and you’d also have a situation where decisions would be more a function of politics (by party) than of Constitutionality. No perfect solution here, unfortunately.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I hadn’t recalled there being an older Justice than Stevens, but you’re correct that Holmes was even older (he retired 2 months before his 91st birthday, so Stevens still has 2 years and 9 months more to go). But as with both, neither should still be sitting on the court at that age. Also, Stevens has surpassed Holmes’s service (Holmes served 29 years and 1 month; Stevens now is at 32 years and 6 months). Stevens’ predecessor was the longest serving in the history of the court (William Douglas at 36 years, 7 months), but he retired at the more reasonable age of 77 (he was only 40 when FDR named him to the court).

BTW, if you get a chance to read Douglas’s Wikipedia entry would be astonished to see how much Jerry Ford was down on him, yet Stevens has been nothing but a clone of Douglas’s ideology, minus some of the peccadilloes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_O._Douglas

[BillyBoy]

I don't think any scenario would have the voters decide who would be the Chief Justice, anymore than the voters currently decide which member of Congress should be speaker of the House. That's left up to Washington. I would keep the current system in place where the President chooses the C.J. It wouldn't neccessarily change every four years. Rehnquist served under Republican presidents for 12 years, and would have likely been re-elected and retained. Also, you might have a Alan Greenspan type situation where a popular incumbant C.J. is retained by the opposition party.

With our elected SC in Illinois, the position of CJ does rotate and is selected by the justices themselves, but I prefer a C.J. who is a definitative "leader" on the court and not just a spokesman among equals. I wish we could keep Bob Thomas on as C.J. of the Illinois Supreme Court for years because it's nice to have ONE branch of government here that's not run by commie Chicago Democrats (even though they have a nominal 4-3 majority on the court)

I think you're right that realistically, they will never push for an elected USSC and the best we can hope for is term limits. I still think someone in Congress should introduce a constiutional amendment for an elected SC just to press the idea and get the electorate talking though.

It would be interesting to see how many states have an elected SC, and how many have an appointed SC. I bet those of us with an elected SC are happier with our judges. :-)

[Amerigomag]

For those who argue the minutia of a McCain-Obama election, your time is wasted and time is your friend.

There is still ample time for the GOP to throw their angry little usurper under the buss. Ample time to appoint, by unanimous consent, a more suitable presidential candidate.

Obama is a poor candidate for a host of reasons. The election is his to loose, and he will loose if the GOP sponsors a normal candidate that the folks in the trenches can support.

It's win-win for the GOP. Get rid of the little old, gray haired liberal, who stole the party's nomination through an open primary process, and the Democrat socialist is a sure looser.

Let McCain continue and the GOP looses regardless of who is elected.

[BillyBoy]

Wow, I thought Jerry Ford made a real fight to impeach Earl Warren (his statement about the bar for impeachment being “whatever Congress wants it to be at that given moment in history” came back to haunt him during Watergate), but that article sounds like he was really gunning for Douglas. Perhaps I confused the two.

It seems wikipedia has an answer to my question about which states elect their SC and which ones have the Governor appoint the SC. Seems only seven states use the federal system.

Electing a federal SC would be a bit weird, but having a President elected by electoral college regardless of what happens in Congress seems weird to other countries. Almost all of them have the leader of each party in parliment campaign against each other for who should run the country.

STATE SUPREME COURTS

- Partisan election
Alabama
Illinois
Louisiana
New Mexico
Pennsylvania
Texas
West Virginia
Maryland

- Non-partisan election
Arkansas
Georgia
Idaho
Kentucky
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Montana
Nevada
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oregon
South Dakota
Washington
Wisconsin

- Election by the state legislature
Connecticut
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Vermont
Virginia

- Appointment by the Governor
Delaware
Hawaii
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York

- The Missouri Plan
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Utah
Wyoming

- Modified Missouri Plan
Florida — The Florida Judicial Nominating Commissions
Tennessee — The Tennessee Plan

[fieldmarshaldj]

Since I’ve done extensive research on most of the states now (I’m just finishing up on Wyoming as of this writing), you might be interested in some of the partisan breakdowns of the courts (as far as I was able to ascertain). Most refuse to identify the partisan affiliations, but I am most happy to (and this is probably the most comprehensive list ever put together on the subject):

- Partisan election
Alabama

8R/1D (the 1D being the Chief Justice)

Illinois

4D/3R

Louisiana

5D/2R

New Mexico

5D (oddly, the GOP never bothers to contest the races)

Pennsylvania

3D/3R (1 vacant)

Texas

9R

West Virginia

4D/1R

Maryland

(I couldn’t find affiliations but for 3 members, all Dems, 3 others had none and 1 was vacant)

---

- Non-partisan election (which ain’t quite so)
Arkansas

Identified 2 partisan Dems, the 5 others I couldn’t, but don’t believe any Republicans

Georgia

6D/1R (1st Republican wasn’t seated until 2005, first since Reconstruction)

Idaho

4R/1D

Kentucky

3R (including the Chief)/2D/1 I couldn’t identify and 1 vacant

Michigan

5R/2D

Minnesota

4R/2 Independents (Venturaites)/1DFL

Mississippi

6R/3D

Montana

4R/1D/2 Unknown

Nevada

5D/2R

North Carolina

4R/3D

North Dakota

4R/1D (the Chief Justice)

Ohio

(Odd, since I believe these are partisan, and known for being an all-GOP court (7), but not all Conservative)

Oregon

4D/3 Non-Partisan (no Republicans identified)

South Dakota

5R

Washington

4D/3 Non-Partisan/2R

Wisconsin

5R/2D (although is really 3 liberal as 1 R is a lib RINO/4 Conservative)

---

- Election by the state legislature
Connecticut

Basically chosen by the Governor, 3 Republicans/3 Weickerite Indys/1D

Rhode Island

3 Non-Partisans/1D/1R

South Carolina

(And this is astonishing) 4D/1 Non-Partisan and NO Republicans

Vermont

3D/2R (including the Chief Justice)

Virginia

4D/3R

---

- Appointment by the Governor
Delaware

3D/2R

Hawaii

4D/1R

Maine

7D

Massachusetts

3D/3R/1 Vacant (1 R is the Chief Justice, an ultraliberal Weldite)

New Hampshire

4D/1R

New Jersey

4D/2R/1I (astonishingly, the 2 R’s were appointed by McGreevey and Corzine, 1 D & 1I were appointed by worthless Whitman !)

New York (the Supreme Court here is a lower court, it is called the NY Court of Appeals, a bit confusing)

4R/3D

---

- The Missouri Plan (supposedly non-partisan, but as it turns out, not always so)

Alaska

3D/2R

Arizona

3D/2R

California

6R/1D (believe it or not)

Colorado

5D/2R

Indiana

3D/2R (including the Chief)

Iowa

4D/3R (including the Chief)

Kansas

4R/3D

Missouri

5D/2R

Nebraska

Could only identify the Chief as a Republican, the other 6 members couldn’t determine affiliation

Oklahoma

7D/2R (including the Chief)

Utah

4R/1D (1D is the Chief)

Wyoming

(Apparently) 4R/1D

---

- Modified Missouri Plan
Florida — The Florida Judicial Nominating Commissions

5D/2R (was 7D during the 2000 decision)

Tennessee — The Tennessee Plan (recently proven to be unconstitutional — we may finally get a partisan election)

3D/2R (including the Chief Justice, and how they got on the bench are stories themselves, the most recent appointee is an “R” appointed by Bredesen because he was mad the liberal selection committee wouldn’t give him a Black nominee he wanted)

---

I’ll even throw in Guam:

1D/1R/1 Vacant

Puerto Rico:

3 Pop Dems/2 New Progs/2 Vacant

Virgin Islands:

3D

[Impy]

Very interesting. Some of those (GA SC) are disheartening.

We should have 4 here in IL. We won the rat-leaning southern IL seat but just prior to that lost a Republican seat. 3 are cook county guaranteed rat.

[fieldmarshaldj]

In the case of Georgia, since no Republican won the Governorship for over 130 years, we were shut out there until 2003 (and we didn’t gain complete control of the legislature until 2005).

South Carolina’s is simply bizarre. The newest appointee, Donald Beatty, (in 2007) is a former Black Democrat legislator. At this point, diversity on the bench would be appointing 1 single friggin’ Republican ! What makes no sense is that the legislature elects the members and we’ve had a GOP House since 1995 and Senate since 2001 and therefore given that the Justices are reelected every 10 years, the entire court should be Republican now. As for the ideology of the justices, I’m not sure. Beatty, I believe, is a moderate, but I can’t say beyond that.

[Impy]

Possible problems with electing Supremes aside. It does not sit well with me that such powerful officials are appointed. I don’t see why the judicial branch should be different than the other 2.