Some Legal Activists Have Hearts Set on 'True Liberal' (SCOTUS)

Washington Post ^ | July 20, 2008 | Robert Barnes and Kevin Merida

[FocusNexus]

If John McCain were elected, the appointment of a conservative justice could immediately reshape the court. The senator from Arizona might be forced to temper his choice to accommodate confirmation by a solidly Democratic Senate, but his nominee would undoubtedly be far to the right of either Stevens or Ginsburg, potentially solidifying a five-member conservative majority.

If Obama had the opportunity to make an appointment, it would be only the fourth nomination from a Democratic president in more than 40 years. And for activists on the left, it could signal the opportunity to create a new dynamic for the court.

Obama has said that justices will be in agreement 95 percent of the time, and in the other cases he looks for a judge "to bring in his or her own perspectives, his ethics, his or her moral bearings."

Republican critics have mocked that description for not including the word "Constitution" and contrasted it with McCain's vow to appoint judges "who have a proven record of strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States."

Kendall winced at Obama's words. He said they make it sound as if one must look outside the law and the Constitution to get the results political progressives are looking for while they are provided for in guarantees of equal protection and due process.

[FocusNexus]

As they say "It's the judges, stupid" -- along with national security, the economy, taxes, healthcare and so on.

[Deagle]

Well, If justices agreed 95 percent of the time, then they would be obeying the constitution... Highly unlikely with the progressive party (you know those wonderful Democrats), since they believe in the living Constitution. So either liberals do not believe in the Constitution “as written” or they are socialist revolutionaries. I hope for the best, but plan to arm myself for the worst.

[Beckwith]

We’ll still have 15% of this forum refuse to vote for McCain, or vote for Bob Barr or Ron Paul, “to make a point.”

[Deagle]

What! Only 15%! I would think that it is much greater than that! The difference is that when it comes down to actually voting, I think that percentage will come down quite a bit. (Not too sure about my family though...).

Many (include me) have had an awful time since McCain has been the Republican nominee. As awful as he is, he is not Obama! I would think that most would “hold their nose” and vote for him anyway.

I just hope that if he is elected that he does not take it as a referendum for Open Borders or worse, an excuse to spend billions for the Global Warming political correct crowd.

[sergeantdave]

So nobama will appoint Marxist traitors to the bench who should rightfully be hanged for sedition. Nothing new here.

[nathanbedford]

One can walk away from this piece laughing or crying. I am feeling pessimistic this morning so I am crying over what has happened to one more American institution.

These liberals in the Washington Post can piously advocate for a Supreme Court which is more democratically responsive and attuned to the needs of the people when these very same liberals have cynically manipulated the law in case after case to impose their will on the majority undemocratically through their domination of the court system. This hypocrisy Is frustrating beyond words for those who love a constitutional democracy. Now, when the impending Liberal majority is apparent to all, they want democracy applied to the courts. How convenient.

One need only resort to one paragraph to demonstrate how tainted isour understanding of the current state of the court:

"It is a court with no true liberal on it, the most conservative court in 75 years," said Geoffrey Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago, where Obama once taught constitutional law. "What we call liberals on this court are moderates, or moderate liberals, if you want to get refined about it."

In rebuttal, I offer a piece I wrote and posted some time ago:

Ruthie "Remedies" is Preganant! A different view of Gonzolas v. Carhart

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821509/posts

[Beckwith]

Many (include me) have had an awful time since McCain has been the Republican nominee. As awful as he is, he is not Obama! I would think that most would “hold their nose” and vote for him anyway.

If Obama gets to appoint the Supremes, this country will never, ever be the same.

Free expression will be limited to the left. There's sufficient evidence to support the view that Obama is very comfortable with censorship. I have personal recent experience with an Obama operative trying to censor me.

Right to bear arms -- fahgeddaboudit! He'll disarm American citizens and arm his private "civilian national security force."

Fisting will be taught to 3rd graders by their GLAAD-approved teachers.

CAIR will be given oversight of "hate crimes" against Muslims and Jess Jackson will be the new "affirmative action czar."

Reparations will be distributed by the "National Reparations Commission," headed by Al Sharpton and Charlie Rangel. Reparations will be funded by the "Whitey Tax."

The United States Constitution will be amended to comply with "International Law" and Supreme Court decisions will be appealed to the International Court of Justice at The Hague.

The Rev. Wright will be named pastor of the National Cathedral.

But there will still be some FReepers that are so damned arrogant and stubborn that they will cast their vote for Obama by default.

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

If John McCain were elected...his nominee would undoubtedly be far to the right of either Stevens or Ginsburg

Bullfeathers. Nobody can predict what McCain will find acceptable as a SCOTUS appointment. But McCain's hash of a track record in the Senate suggests it would be someone with "bipartisan" appeal, non-controversial.

And probably someone not too particular about the quote-unquote* Constitution.


*That's a reference to the way McCain dismissed the First Amendment in a discussion of CFR.

[WorkingClassFilth]

but [McCain's] nominee would undoubtedly be far to the right of either Stevens or Ginsburg . . .

. . . and how do we know this?

[ronnie raygun]

And for activists on the left, it could signal the opportunity to create a new dynamic for the court.

Yeah, the destruction of America!

[Condor51]

****If Obama gets to ... etc, etc. etc....
But there will still be some FReepers that are so damned arrogant and stubborn that they will cast their vote for Obama by default.****

Nice rant, that's tellin' em! But I have a question:

And by how many percentage points will McCain win your state of Massachusetts??

Never mind, let me guess - by the same percent he'll *win* my state, Illinois. Which will be about -30%

No, I'm not trying to be a smart-a$$. My point is that for conservatives 'stuk in blu states' this time we don't have to swallow our pride, follow the party like, vote for someone who loathes us, just because that 'R' is there after his name.

We can escape from 'battered voter syndrome' and say to the GOP, "screw you and the RINO you rode in on" and vote for a 3rd Party Conservative. And we can do this as our vote in our Blue States means diddly-squat, until the Electoral College is abolished anyway.

Don't get me wrong I've voted for more than my fair share of ubber RINOs running for state office, but not this time, not for senator McAmnesty. He doesn't want my vote so he ain't going to get it. And that's NOT voting for Obama by default as Obama had IL won as soon as he beat Hillary. And the same goes for your state, Massachusetts, too.

No offense meant, and have a nice day.

"Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we don't have to vote for a RINO, we are free at last!"
original ©: MLK jr

[Norman Bates]

The latest poll showed McCain down only ten in IL. He has a chance if you’d give him one.

[FocusNexus]

“My point is that for conservatives ‘stuk in blu states’ this time we don’t have to swallow our pride, follow the party like, vote for someone who loathes us, just because that ‘R’ is there after his name.”

==

Yes, you do — many states will be battleground states, and even in states that Obama will win, the votes contribute to the national vote total. The more votes Obama gets and fewer votes McCain gets, will embolden Obama and the Dems more to declare and act as if they had a mandate for “change”, THEIR kind of change. THAT is how your vote for third party will be interpreted, NOT as you intended.

Not to mention that the reason why people vote the way they vote is NOT tabulated, only the results.

[Beckwith]

And by how many percentage points will McCain win your state of Massachusetts??

Well, I'm an old fart, and not nearly as clever as you, but I would vote for McCain (not my first choice) if I were the only damned one in the state doing so.

My vote would be added to those who voted against Obama and regardless of the outcome of the election, I would know that I had done the right thing.

Your post reeks of negativism, defeatism and spite.

No offense meant, and have a nice day.

[supercat]

The latest poll showed McCain down only ten in IL. He has a chance if you’d give him one.

McCain does have a chance of winning, if Obama messes up badly enough. On the other hand, if McCain does win Illinois, or even gets within 2%, he won't need the win.

While voting third-party might not be the optimal choice in an election where one's vote will affect the result, in a situation where one's vote will not affect the result I think it sends a clearer message than a lesser-of-two-evils vote. Among other things, if someone who is undeniably conservative makes a decent third-party showing in a leftist state, that would suggest strongly that McCain is excessively leftist even for a "blue state".