Posted on 04/29/2012 6:40:28 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
Huge!
I guess it all depends on how you perceive Romney - as either a doctrinaire Liberal or as a previous poster noted "an ambitious weather vane". I see the weather vane. Everything is negotiable with this guy.
And if you want to argue strategy, gridlocking Obama with a Republican Congress for 4 years...
This thread is about SC nominees. How does your strategy help this?
The Democrats were able to block Bork, so it is possible for the opposition to sink a nominee. We were about 5 votes away from filibustering Kagan, 8 for Sotomayor, but couldn’t block Kagan because of the RINOs like Lugar, Graham, Snowe, Collins, etc.
There is also the possibility to pass laws which invalidate some Supreme Court rulings. Of course Constitutionally-based ones would require passing an amendment, but I’m not too sure how much liberal policy could be defended on a constitutional basis, since those arguments often come down in favor of more free speech.
But it’s true that the ability to appoint judges at all levels would be one of Obama’s powers that would be more difficult to hold in check.
Court balance?
Both appoint liberal judges.
Harry Reid would do everything he can to make it happen. It’s not like the GOP has a spine.
If there wasn't going to be such a high number of SC replacements or if Obama wasn't so radical your strategy would have a lot of merit.
I don't trust Romney on judges, but he could be pressured, especially in his first term if he hopes to get any conservative support for re-election. Like Mae West said to Cary Grant, "You can be had." We would have leverage with Romney, but none with Obama.
That would be possible if the rats had 60 Senators, but they don’t.
It’s the only issue more important than the economy. But only us partisans focus on it. The sheeple masses are mostly clueless.
>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, obviously fun for everyone.
And by ‘fun’ I don’t mean CWII, because the Kelo decision should have done *that*; it was, after all, a decision saying that the government can justify taking your property with nothing more than imagining (projecting) that it would generate some sort of taxable income.
>Frankly, at this point in history, all the Romney Republican fear-mongering about judges does is disgust and anger me.
You and me both.
I’d vote for Obama sooner than Romney because at least Obama would be more polarizing and uniting his opponents; though, to be honest, given how the GOP has acted I don’t think there’s much hope (for good governance) in either of the parties.
>Name one conservative Mitt Romney named to the courts in Massachusetts.
They’re all conservative, in that they “keep” things the way they are.
(This is why I hate precedent; it is nothing less than judges playing a game of ‘telephone’ with the jurisprudence... and then excusing themselves from any responsibility by saying “it was already that way.”)
>that will become a regret as our children and grandchild for generations get ruled on by Obama lasting court appointees.
That’s ridiculous on its face:
A SC Justice can be removed from office by 1) impeachment, & 2) committing a felony (Good behavior clause), and 3) assassination (why do you think they have US Marshall protection?).
The felony one would be absurdly easy to get them on; consider the Kelo decision wherein the court justified the use of a *projection* as satisfying the “public use” requirements of the 5th Amendment. US Code, Title 18, part 1, Sec 242 says:
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;
[...]
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
This is a felony offense; and given that in order to have a majority opinion the USSC has to have more than one person concurring so the “two or more” is satisfied. Furthermore, using their own decision as “proof” of the “constitutionality” of the ruling would be invalid; for one thing it presupposes that the USSC is greater than the Constitution, having the authority to alter it at will... for another it is the very act in question.
>I’ll hold my nose and vote for Ron Paul.
Question: Why would you have to hold your nose?
There isn't any.
He'd do less damage to the Constitution than would another Souter.
There may well come a time when there are five lawless judges on the Court. When that time comes, the only hope for the Republic will be for a significant portion of the populace to realize that although what the Constitution says, and what the Supreme Court says, will be one and the same when the court is doing its duty, there is nothing in the Supreme Law of the Land which gives the Supreme Court any authority to issue decisions contrary to it, much less anything which says such decisions should be regarded as superior to the Constitution.
The more overtly political the Court's leftist judges are, the more accepting people will be of the notion that an overt willingness on the part of some of the justices to ignore the Constitution does not change the Supreme Law of the Land. If in some case five judges openly ignore the Constitution, there may not be any remedy for the actual parties to that case, but nor is there any basis for declaring that the Constitution means the things claimed by judges who are overtly disregarding it.
I don't trust him either and I'd make him give up a short list of potential nominees.
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.