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.
Here’s an editorial from a reporter who has shed all appearances of objectivity. AND TAKE IT EASY WITH THE PICTURES, I just ate!
(I haven’t seen this many scary pictures since Halloween)
“our entire country nearly dissolved”Good catch and agreed.Not the entire country. Only half. Not “dissolved”, but broken up.
I should have added, our country may break up again if the Supreme Court continues to insist that states have no right to legislate against abortion (check), gay marriage (coming soon!) and other matters that were always state issues and never federal issues (until the SC decided they were federal issues).
I may not agree with my social conservative friends that abortion and gay marriage must be outlawed, but I will always defend the right of the people and the states to decide these matters and I believe as Lincoln and Ike did that the rule of law must be the rule of the land if the Constitution and all the blood spilt to protect and defend this Republic is to have any meaning at all.
Helen, Obama, Pelosi and all the other liberal scum have ZERO respect for the will of the people and the rule of law, let alone open debate in legislative bodies.
Helen “Hot Mama” Thomas????Heehee.
She’s a case for abortion.
She makes me believe there is a Satan.
She’s a case for men becoming gay, or hermits, or suicidal.
Your selfish self-fulfilling prophecy ("the river's going to overflow its banks no matter what I do so I will do nothing") has come to pass.
You're staring at the future you permitted by your inaction.
America -- a great idea, didn't last.
Named Bill Clinton, NOT "Barack Obama" if memor serves...
LOL
They dropped that identification like a hot potatoe, didn’t they?
She's so dense that she feels that Bush v. Gore was a terrible decision. Well, her guy Gore was stopped from cheating his way to the WH. I suppose that in her view, judicial activism is fine except when 'Rats pervert the election process and the Court doesn't let them get away with it.
Her concept "liberal" vs. "conservative" judges is quite simplistic. More meaningful ways to classify judges are strict constructionist vs. judicial activist or libertarian vs. statist.
He did in fact do both, though he was only a part-timer on the Chicago Law faculty. But that doesn't mean that he understands the Constitution, as is evidenced by his railing against the principle that "the Constitution limits what government can do to people." He demonstrates every day in office that he doesn't give a hoot about Constitutional limits on government power and would rather have a Constitution which mandates that the government do things.
A head full of mush and wrinkles!
Agreed!
Pass that pic around the Mideast. It will cut Al Queda recruitment by 99%.
As to the court the alleged shortlist (more than one version it seems) is all female (and no lesbians one headline laments, Napalitano IS on the list! So is Elena Kagen...) expect for Cali Supreme Carlos Moreno and Federal Appeals Court Judge Merrick Garland.
It seems certain Berry will acquiesce to the “uproar” and pick a woman. Deval Patrick will have to be appointed something else, like Ambassador to Tuvalu. Or maybe he’ll just become a lobbyist.
What is that?
It’s Pat!
I’m not gonna risk my retinas on the graphics, but thanks js!
HBO pays homage to Helen Thomas http://www.hbo.com/docs/docuseries/helenthomas/index.html
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.