Posted on 05/13/2009 2:03:43 PM PDT by seanmerc
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama should appoint a woman to the U.S. Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice David Souter. And she should be a liberal.
The high court is top heavy with conservative justices. And there is only one woman, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on the high bench.
Obama’s choice will say a lot because Supreme Court’s decisions are the ultimate in our national life.
Republicans are itching for a fight over the nominee, despite the fact that they had their way for too many years and worked to tip the court to the right.
This is Obama’s great opportunity to make a statement.
Having taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago and headed the law review at Harvard University’s law school, Obama is imminently qualified to know the ins and outs of jurisprudence.
Obama has already expressed his views about the kind of person he’s looking for. He has expressed the need for a person with "empathy," which indicates a feeling for the plight of others. He also has reportedly passed the word that he wants someone who will be pragmatic on the bench, whatever that means.
Obama is being pushed by Hispanic groups to name the first Hispanic to the high court. Most prominently mentioned in that category is Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who sits on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. Sotomayor graduated from Princeton University and went to Yale University law school. She grew up poor in public housing in the Bronx, but some of her detractors are calling attention to her reputation for being tough and short tempered.
The new justice undoubtedly will run up against the conservative bloc, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.
Many voters think about the makeup of the Supreme Court when they are choosing a president. The justices deal not only with constitutional issues but also with social issues that were unknown to the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution more than 200 years ago.
The justices read newspapers and are aware of the problems of the day.
If you want to measure the court’s impact, I would recommend that you dig into the history of the Warren court.
One of the most historic and transforming decisions of the court headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren -- who held the post from 1953 to 1969 -- was Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, Kans. In an electrifying ruling, the court held that "separate but equal" public schools were unconstitutional.
The Brown decision changed American life by making segregation illegal, a conclusion that eventually affected such public facilities as hotels and restaurants. The social values unleashed by that case made possible the election of the first black president of the United States.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who appointed Warren, was never happy with the Warren court’s liberal decisions. Among them was the Miranda ruling that required police officers to inform arrested people of their rights -- even their right to remain silent. Speaking of disappointed presidents, the first President Bush appointed Souter to the Supreme Court in 1990 and probably regretted that choice after Souter turned out to be a moderate on the court.
Souter was even a dissenting justice in the historic 2000 decision in Bush vs. Gore that gave the presidential election to Bush’s son, George W. Bush. The court has always been esteemed, whether or not you agree with its rulings -- but it lost its halo when it intervened in that case. For many Americans, myself included, the Supreme Court will never be the same after that decision.
Obama is bound to have more opportunities to name other justices in the future. John Paul Stevens, the leader of the liberals, is 89 years old, and Justice Ginsburg is 76 and ailing. Both could retire in coming years.
The president has a lot of weighty decision to make during his tenure, but few are more relevant to Americans than Obama’s choice of whom he will nominate to sit on the Supreme Court.
Not a bad idea—our three-year-old niece is visiting. Getting her to eat can be a challenge. This could be just the motivational tool we need!
I guess that’s why I like jelly beans ... made it sort of colorful what with the pot’s and maybe some corn mixed in ...
ACK!
Poor pathetic woman..I wonder what she dresses like on Halloween..
Life was rough for Hagulous!
When Hagulous was a teenager she worked in a pet store. People kept asking how big she’d get.
Her mother had morning sickness after she was born.
She had a difficult childhood...
As a child her bath toys were a toaster and a radio.
Her father carried around the picture of the kid who came with his wallet.
When she played in the sandbox the cat kept covering her up.
Once she was kidnapped and they sent back a piece of her finger to her father. He said he wanted more proof!
She went to a freak show and they let her in for nothing. In fact, they voted her queen for life.
Once when she was lost.. she saw a policeman and asked him to help her find her parents. She said to him... “Do you think we’ll ever find them.” He said..”I don’t know kid.. there are so many places they can hide.”
On Halloween..the parents send their kids out looking like Helen.
Last year.. one kid tried to rip her face off!
Now it’s different.. when she answers the door the kids hand her candy.
When her dad wanted sex.. her mother would show him a picture of Helen.
She had a lot of pimples too. One day she fell asleep in a library. When she woke up and a blind man was reading her
face.
Copy desk fired, spell checker broken, brain on the fritz, can't spell no more, cain't remember nuthin'!
What an old washed-up degenerate liberal hag journo to do?!?
“Which one is Helen??”
I think the dog is quite beautiful by comparison, so I couldn’t understand why the two pictures were shown side by side. Then I realized that the point of showing the pictures side by side was to show what happens when you tell a dog that he’s about to be adopted by Helen Thomas.
Her niece or grand niece does news in Grand Rapids Michigan at wotv.com. Her name is Suzanne Gehau...
Well, the discussion about what sort of justice Barack Obama will seek highlights the the problem that the judiciary...it is not a legitimate body constrained by the Constitution or the laws of this nation. That’s why everyone is seeking a black, hispanic, homo, female justice.
Good catch!
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who appointed Warren, was never happy with the Warren court’s liberal decisions.
Wait, I take that back. Ike was pissed at most of the Warren Court's liberal decisions, with the exception of Brown v. Board of Education. I'm just glad she didn't claim Ike as a liberal. Some of his spoiled offspring like Susan "Obama" Eisenhower are liberals, but Ike was most unliberal.
Helen ought to research Abe Lincoln and Dred Scott sometime to learn how our entire country nearly dissolved in a matter of a few years time because the Supreme Court invented law from the bench and usurped the rights of states and the rule of law to decide for themselves to ban slavery within their state. Liberals wouldn't know the first thing about the rule of law.
100 years later, Ike was far more outraged and concerned about the Supreme Court superseding the rule of law and the will of the people than he was about whether the rulings benefited conservatives or liberals.
We all lose (Roe v. Wade, a prime example) when the robed judges decide they know better than legislative bodies and the Constitution. Abe Lincoln and Ike were men of principle. Helen Thomas is a stooge for the unprincipled, by any means necessary liberal left. And she's fugly to boot.
Chuckle. Thanks!
“Stevens, the leader of the liberals, is 89 years old.... could retire in coming years.”
Would that Helen would insert herself into that sentence.
Come on. German Shepherds are gorgeous.
...add this one, You’re so ugly...You're "Living Bra" died, a horrible death. 
“our entire country nearly dissolved”
Not the entire country. Only half. Not “dissolved”, but broken up.
“Having taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago and headed the law review at Harvard University’s law school, Obama is imminently qualified to know the ins and outs of jurisprudence.”
He did neither. Let them show his enrollment records.
Thanks for the pics. I just threw-up in my mouth. Why are all these left-wing maggots so f’ing ugly?!?!?
“Having taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago and headed the law review at Harvard University’s law school, Obama is imminently qualified to know the ins and outs of jurisprudence.”
He did neither. Let them show his enrollment records.
Thanks for the pics. I just threw-up in my mouth. Why are all these left-wing maggots so f’ing ugly?!?!?
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.