The Supreme Court and the Election: What's at Stake (liberal editorial)

The Nation ^ | October 16, 2008 | Herman Schwartz

[Clintonfatigued]

The upcoming presidential election will shape the Supreme Court for decades to come. John Paul Stevens is 88, David Souter dislikes Washington and the 75-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been treated for cancer. One or more of these liberal Justices will probably leave the bench in the next four years. The replacement of one or two of them by a conservative would mean a rollback of key rulings of recent years.

Roe v. Wade has drawn the most attention, but many other liberal rulings of the past twenty years that were decided by 5-to-4 or 6-to-3 votes could be reversed. Even if these decisions are not overruled outright, conservative judges can obtain the same result by redefining what is protected, erecting procedural hurdles or forcing repeated expensive litigation. Here are some of the most important rulings that would be threatened by a McCain Court:

[Clintonfatigued]

This is also what’s at stake. The author of this article makes our point for us without intending to.

[umgud]

I went to the link and read the article....... amazing how the liberal mind views things.

[KriegerGeist]

The Liberals would love a packed liberal-majority court. The judges could legislate most all laws from the bench, disregard the U.S. Constitution and rule according to International Law of the World Court. All the Congress would need to do would be to pass tax-raising laws and leave the rest to the Supremes.

[padre35]

Heller v DC was 5-4.

[Centurion2000]

bump

[Clintonfatigued]

“Heller v DC was 5-4.”

Many significant rulings were.

[metmom]

Here are some of the most important rulings that would be threatened by a McCain Court:

Going back to conservative values is a threat? A threat to what?

Only to a liberal mind.

[Clintonfatigued]

Bump

[conservative gal in PA]

Major reason why this election is so important, so common sense and true American values can prevail, NOT liberal/leftist ideology.

[chesley]

Well, dang. Of course the SC is at stake. That’s why we have to win.

[chesley]

You’ll notice also that the libs are not touting the multiple advantages of a divided government anymore, or the concept of balance on the Supreme Court, major talking points of yesteryear.

[Impy]

Why do they love terrorist prisoners so?