Court balance in play this election

Orange County Register ^ | April 27, 2012 | Brian Calle

[Clintonfatigued]

The stakes in this year's election are higher than normal because the next president may have the unusual opportunity to impact the ideological direction of the Supreme Court, untypical of any one presidential term.

During the next presidential term, starting in January 2013, of the nine Supreme Court justices, "three of the justices will be in their 80s," notes Clint Bolick, author of the new book, "Two-Fer: Electing a President and a Supreme Court."

"[W]hoever is elected in November may have the rare chance to reinforce or alter the courts balance," he said.

And with Supreme Court rulings like Citizens United in 2010 – and perhaps the upcoming decisions on Obamacare and the federal government's lawsuit against Arizona's illegal-immigration law – hinging on the opinion of a single justice and setting longstanding precedents, the court's balance ought to be top of mind for voters this year.

There is no guarantee when a justice will retire nor can they be forced to do so. Supreme Court justices are constitutionally guaranteed a life term and can serve for as long as they wish to.

Of those justices reaching their eighties in the next presidential term, two of the three are regarded as being on the conservative side of the court. Among the liberals, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg turns 80 in 2013. Conservative Antonin Scalia, 76, turns 80 in 2016. Anthony Kennedy, often portrayed as the swing vote on the typically divided court, turns 77 this summer and 80 in 2015.

[Churchillspirit]

All you Romney bashers on FR need to put on your big boy pants and consider what a Eric Holder nomination to the Supreme Court would mean

Well said!

[Last Dakotan]

Using your logic we should vote for Democratic Party Presidents every election.

[libdestroyer]

>Using your logic we should vote for Democratic Party Presidents every election.

No, just the ones where our party puts up another Democrat.