Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Clintonfatigued

1) Kinda getting ahead of ourselves here. He’s not even officially the nominee and now he’s making SCOTUS appointments?

2) It’s doubtful the other two liberal justices are retiring soon and almost certainly won’t while there is a Republican in the White House, even a RINO, knowing how close they are now to an ideological split.

3) None of the conservative justices are particularly old or in ill health. I don’t see any of them dying or stepping down before 2017.

4) Whenever Justice Kennedy decides to step down, all hell will break loose. I pity whoever the president is at that time (but pray it is a conservative) because the libs will DEMAND a liberal be put in his place.


3 posted on 05/26/2012 2:20:31 PM PDT by OrangeHoof (Our economy won't heal until one particular black man is unemployed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: OrangeHoof

“Whenever Justice Kennedy decides to step down, all hell will break loose. I pity whoever the president is at that time (but pray it is a conservative) because the libs will DEMAND a liberal be put in his place.”

That’s why we need to concentrate on the down-ballot races, to assure enough Senators to prevent a worst-case senario.


6 posted on 05/26/2012 2:26:45 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (Obama and Company lied, the American economy died)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: OrangeHoof
None of the conservative justices are particularly old or in ill health.

Don't kid yourself. Given some of the ages of the justices, anything could happen.

Scalia is in his late 70s and, while he seems healthy at that age, you never know when someone could take a quick turn for the worst. Kennedy is the same age and, while he's obviously the court's "moderate," why wouldn't we want to at least have a chance to replace him with a conservative.

Furthermore, Ginsburg is even older and there's a good chance the next president will replace her on the court, giving us a chance to solidify a true conservative majority.

Conversely, if Scalia and Kennedy leave the court, for whatever reason, we could easily end up with a hard left majority there for 20-30 years. That alone is a reason to vote for Romney, rather than risk four more years of Obama appointees.

8 posted on 05/26/2012 2:31:11 PM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: OrangeHoof

Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg is 79 and a cancer survivor. I just don’t see her stepping down if she didn’t while Obama was in office. If she steps down this summer, you can image it will become a campaign issue and the Senate may not vote on it until after Election Day (why would a Dem up for re-election want to tie himself to the viewpoint of a radical left Obama nominee?).

Scalia is 76. Kennedy is 75. Breyer is 73. It should be noted that SCOTUS justices have excellent health care and routinely live well into their 80s.


9 posted on 05/26/2012 2:31:11 PM PDT by OrangeHoof (Our economy won't heal until one particular black man is unemployed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: OrangeHoof

Hmm, Justice Scalia just turned 78, Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this year, Justice Breyer will be 76 in August, and Justice Ginsburg is 81.

The next few years will be crucial. They will probably set the direction of the court for the next 100 years. And I’m pretty sure that if Obambi is reelected, his next appointee will be a muslim.


12 posted on 05/26/2012 2:35:01 PM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: OrangeHoof

” Kinda getting ahead of ourselves here. He’s not even officially the nominee and now he’s making SCOTUS appointments?”

I don’t think so.

First, a disclaimer: I’m not a Romney “supporter”, I voted for Newt in my state’s primary even after it was clear he was going to drop out.

Nevertheless, I have read dozens, perhaps hundreds of posts in this forum claiming that, if elected, Romney would only nominate liberals or “middlers” to the Court.

If a President Romney nominates Mr. Clement — especially if the current Court tosses out ObamaCare — that would rate a “conservative home run” knocked right out of the ballpark.

I also recall reading, right here on FR, that the one of the advisors working with Romney on judicial appointments is none less than former solicitor general Robert Bork. Again, the gold standard of judicial conservatism. You can’t find a better consigliere than that.

So yes, I -do- think something like this warrants a close look by those who are “wary of Romney”....


61 posted on 05/26/2012 9:38:19 PM PDT by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: OrangeHoof
...Kinda getting ahead of ourselves here. He’s not even officially the nominee and now he’s making SCOTUS appointments?

True, but look who's thinking about it ? Reuters ! They see what's coming and know Obie doesn't have a chance in hell.

I'm comforted--well actually I was never worried--but many FReepers should be comforted by the names here.

But, you're correct in another sense....it's too early to know whom Mitt would actually nominate, even though Clement and Kavanaugh are likelies by most all standards. I don't sense Romney is a liberal. I think he's a conservative Mormon, (as most are, aren't they), forced to operative in the most liberal environment, who wrongly believed you had to work with liberals to survive.

90 posted on 05/28/2012 8:17:48 AM PDT by chiller (Elect another batch of TPartiers and it won't matter which R we elect. WE will lead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson