But just to get their perspective, let me insert here what one of them argued back:
Republican Dwight Eisenhower nominated Earl Warren as chief justice of the United States in 1953. Eisenhower said at the time that he wanted a "conservative" justice and that Warren "represents the kind of political, economic, and social thinking that I believe we need on the Supreme Court." Warren, however, turned out to be one of the most liberal-activist chief justices in the history of the United States.
The Warren Court found a "right of privacy" lurking somewhere in the emanations and shadows of the Constitution, in a 1965 case called Griswold v. Connecticut, upon which the ghastly Roe v. Wade abortion case was later based. It also ruled on several cases that outlawed religion in local public life, ostensibly in order not to offend the First Amendment.
Another Eisenhower appointee, William Brennan, was also a tremendously influential Supreme Court justice, who consistently imposed his own radical political views upon families, communities, and states, rather than being restrained by the limits of the Constitution.
Republican President Richard Nixon appointed Harry Blackmun to the Supreme Court: in 1973, he wrote the infamous Roe v. Wade decision, which nullified all state antiabortion laws in a single stroke and led to the unrestrained murder of tens of millions of babies.
Republican President Gerald Ford appointed Justice John Paul Stevens to the court in 1975: one of the most liberal justices ever to sit on that institution.
Republican super-hero Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court in 1981 and 1988 respectively. Both voted to strike down state restrictions on abortion (Planned Parenthood v. Casey) and state anti-sodomy laws (Lawrence v. Texas). Both have gone on record favoring the use of international law to interpret our Constitution.
Republican President George H.W. Bush nominated David Souter to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1990. Souter was touted as a "home run for conservatism" by his home-state Republican senator, John Sununu of New Hampshire. Once approved, Souter flipped, voting against abortion restrictions, against state laws prohibiting sodomy, and against private property.
By 1992, at the beginning of the Clinton presidency, eight of the nine Supreme Court justices were Republican appointees. Yet, the court continued its destructive pattern of trampling on property rights, disrespecting the right to life, expanding state power, disregarding family and local autonomy, and (in general) imposing unconstitutional rulings. There was little attempt to restrain the unconstitutional excesses of the president or Congress.
If John McCain is elected president, what kind of Supreme Court justices would he likely nominate? Would he break the pattern of past Republican presidents and nominate judges who respect the Constitution?
McCain's campaign website says that "Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito will serve as the model for John McCain's judicial nominees." But what kind of model do they provide?
Roberts said during his confirmation hearings that Roe v. Wade is "settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis [Latin for 'stand by a decision']." Alito said he would approach the issue of Roe the way he would "every legal issue I approach as a judge, and that is to approach it with an open mind." An open mind is not an admirable quality when life is at stake.
Nor has McCain himself been consistent on the issue of Roe. In 1999, he told the San Francisco Chronicle that "certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." That statement, of course, contradicts what he has said on other occasions, as well as what he has done by voting to approve two virulently pro-Roe justices, Ginsburg and Breyer.
In light of this record, how realistic is it to expect that John McCain would appoint conservatives to the bench?
Great post - I didn’t read it until after I had submitted my follow-up to another response. It looks as though we have posted similar information.
In hindsight, these presidential contests and the threats of liberal SCOTUS justices take on the appearance of a big charade, don’t they?