Posted on 10/24/2008 10:16:26 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
During every presidential campaign for the last two decades, liberals have predicted an apocalypse in the Supreme Court. In their dire visions, as many as four justices are always about to retire, meaning that a Republican victory would turn the court radically to the right and lead to the certain overturning of Roe v. Wade.
In each of the past three elections, of course, these hyperbolic predictions have turned out to be wrong. Since 1996, Roe has been supported by a comfortable 6-3 majority, and the Court, controlled by two relatively moderate swing justices, Sandra Day O'Connor and now Anthony Kennedy, has remained fairly centrist. All of this had led some Court-watchers, including me, to conclude that the stakes for the Court in most presidential elections are less dire than many liberals fear.
Not this time. This year, for the first time since the New Deal era, a single election really does have the power to transform the Court--at the very moment that voters, rightly concerned about the tanking economy and the war in Iraq, are looking the other way. Given the fact that the older justices are liberal rather than conservative--and that the oldest, John Paul Stevens, is 88--it's hard to deny that nominations by John McCain would change the Court far more dramatically than those by Barack Obama. An Obama victory would maintain the current balance of the Court, while a McCain Court could create a solid conservative majority.
(Excerpt) Read more at tnr.com ...
Without intending to, Jeffrey Rosen makes one of the best cases for supporting Sarah Palin and her running mate.
“Given the fact that the older justices are liberal rather than conservative—and that the oldest, John Paul Stevens, is 88—it’s hard to deny that nominations by John McCain would change the Court far more dramatically than those by Barack Obama. An Obama victory would maintain the current balance of the Court, while a McCain Court could create a solid conservative majority.”
I’m desperately looking for reasons to be optimistic if Obama wins.
And the fact that the Court’s geezers are the liberals, and more likely to be replaced by a President Obama, helps.
How would putting more Souters on the court change it?
Under an Obama administration, if I were Justice Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Scalia I’d be watching my back.
Maybe, but "moderate swing justices" , Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy" were both appointed by none other than Ronald Reagan. Do we really know or can expect McCain to be more conservative in judicial appointments than Reagan?
Perhaps one day in the distant future a true leader shall rise that will lead us out of the socialism that is about to enshroud this country, and lead us again into freedom.
More accurately phrased as, "Without intending to, Jeffrey Rosen makes one of the best cases for helping Sarah Palin drag her running mate across the finish line"
What balance is this joker talking about. Obama will put new world order jurists on the court. Constitution be damned. McCain is harder to predict but I would say he would put moderate jurists to the Court.
“Maybe, but “moderate swing justices” , Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy” were both appointed by none other than Ronald Reagan. Do we really know or can expect McCain to be more conservative in judicial appointments than Reagan?”
O’Connor was a bad pick, but I believe Kennedy was a solid conservative at the time. Unfortunately, Flipper “grew” once on the Court.
You don’t always know what you’re getting, unfortunately. Eisenhower put Warren on the Court (which he said turned out to be his biggest mistake), Kennedy appointed White (who turned out pretty conservative, except on civil rights), and FDR appointed Frankfurter (whose name still irritates liberal law professors).
Ronald Reagan also gave up Antonin Scalia, and George W. Bush, for all his mistakes, gave us Clarence Thomas. There is no way a Democrat President would appoint such excellent justices.
McCain has praised those justices in his speeches, which is a good sign.
The idea of court balance comes from liberal minds, you are right. I remember when Bush filled the two vacancies on the Supreme Court, and Chuck Shumer said that they had to consider Judge Alito very very carefully. The reason, Shumer said, is because he was being appointed to “the O’Connor seat” on the court, He said that the O’Connor seat was a swing seat, or some such talk.
Of course we all know there is no “O’Connor” seat, or certain seats on the court reserved for moderate, liberal, conservative, black, women, or anyone else. This is an example of liberals saying something and not being challenged, and then it becomes accepted truth. Millions of people now think that the court should reflect a certain balance. Shumer and his colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee were less antagonistic towards Judge Roberts than towards Alito. To them, replacing the late Justice Rehnquist with another conservative didn’t upset the balance of the court, but replacing the moderate/liberal O’Connor with a strong conservative caused them fits.
Most Supreme Court justices have the decency to retire when the sitting president is of the same party. Souter is getting older but he has mainly talked about wanting to go home to his state. If he ends up stepping down during an Obama presidency after being appointed as a Republican, I will smash something.
At any rate, Kennedy is now the swing vote on the court. I wonder how many will retire if Obama wins, and if one of the elderly libs will wait until 2012 (mainly souter) for a chance of a Republican president to replace him.
It would make me happy if Kennedy were no longer the swing vote. He’s more conservative than O’Connor, but he’s still a yahoo about certain things like using social standards from overseas.
I hope Souter does the right thing and waits for a Republican president before stepping down.
If McCain gets in, he’s still going to be facing a Senate with a Dem majority. They simply won’t allow him to appoint anyone to the right of Souter (at least) onto the Court.
Obama, on the other hand, could probably get a Chicago ambulance-chaser confirmed with no problem.
It will be a battle to get first class justices out of McCain but at least there will be a chance. Conservatives did stop GW's attempted supreme court missteps. Any Obama justice will be a nightmare.
“Where do the libtards get this theory that the SCOTUS must remain “In Balance”
They weren’t worried about it during the 1960’s.
David Souter didn’t retire when Bush was in office. However, he may not have the same attitude towards McCain, especially if Democrats have a 56 to 60 Senators.
I think she's already on the scene. And I think Rush has it right when he says that the real task before us is the same no matter who wins the election: rebuilding the conservative movement. If Obama wins, the task is probably a little easier because it will be easier to muster the troops. That, however, has all the dangers of an Obama presidency. If McCain wins, we still must rebuild the conservative movement, because while McCain would be infinitely better for the country than Obama, he flat ain't no conservative.
We conservatives have been outmaneuvered for far too long. It is OUR political belief system that built this country. It is OUR political belief system that actually still dominates this country. Satan is the #1 enemy of this country, and the finest and most effective tool he's had at his disposal in the history of the world is the United States' current infostructure. From near-cradle to grave, liberals have an iron grip from which they disseminate the evil of liberalism.
MM (in TX)
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.