Separated at birth?
Posted on 05/24/2012 2:38:05 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
A little more than a year ago, Harvard Law School Prof. Randall Kennedy sounded the alarm.
“Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer should soon retire,” Kennedy wrote in the pages of The New Republic. “That would be the responsible thing for them to do.”
If they didn’t, Kennedy warned, and “if Obama loses, they will have contributed to a disaster.”
As the presidential race heats up, and the Supreme Court justices settle into their chambers to write their last and most consequential rulings of the 2011-12 term—from health care to immigration—Kennedy’s question once again seems relevant, even revelatory: most court watchers agree it’s now too late for Ginsburg—or Breyer, or any other justice—to give President Obama a third nomination to the high court before the election.
Kennedy’s hypothetical has taken on renewed significance, however, since Mitt Romney is currently polling close to or above President Obama in several key battleground states. If he were to unseat Obama this fall, and Ginsburg—a two-time cancer survivor who turns 80 next March—doesn’t feel she can continue through Romney’s first (or possibly second) term, should liberals fault her for potentially tilting the balance of the court for decades to come? (Breyer, 72, has had no reported major health scares, although he does seem to be a burglar magnet.)
This is the “disaster” Kennedy foresaw: a multigeneration conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Since the 1990s, the court has been in ideological equipoise: a conservative bloc and a liberal bloc, each regularly finding itself in the position of needing to win the vote of Justice Anthony Kennedy (or, until her retirement in 2006, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor).
Of course, the justices themselves resist characterizing their votes as “liberal” or “conservative,” instead arguing that they are guided by the Constitution and other supposedly “neutral” principles. But that pretense took a hit in 2000 by the vote in Bush v. Gore, the core of which was decided 5-4, with the conservative justices (including Kennedy) voting in favor of Bush’s argument and the liberal justices voting in favor of Gore’s.
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE REST...
“..whoever we elect as president in November is almost certainly going to choose at least one and maybe more new members of the Supreme Court..”
_________________
“With Bammy we would get a full on Commie, with Romney we will get a psuedo-socialist...”
________________
Glad to see you both agree with my tagline. Thanks.
I think it’s a little late now. If she announces at the end of the SCOTUS term that she’s retiring, O would nominate a replacement, which would be before a Senate with a D majority, but with many in that majority up for reelection in a few short months. Not sure a real lib would be confirmed. The time to have acted (from the left’s perspective), would have been last year.
For them to retire would be akin to admitting that 0 is a failure whom they believe is likely to lose the election.
Nothing more needs to be said on this issue. Perfect summation.
The vote that stopped the counting in 2000 was 7-2, not 5-4.
If you want to vote for Romney, be sure to not examine the people he put on the bench.
The second part I must disagree. Bush I appointed Souter on bad advise and then gave us Thomas. Bush II appointed two great conservatives. One came about after he nominated Miers and Senate GOP told him no way- they learned from Souter.
This is another reason to settle for Romney...
Well, it’s not like Romney picked conservatives in MA.
He’s a moderate liberal and will pick moderate liberals.
“It does not matter as Obama will be shown to be constitutionally unqualified for office and each of his appointments to the court will be disqualified.”
It would certainly change the SCOTUS if the “wise Latina,” and “Commie Kagan” had to “disrobe.” I just don’t think Romney would replace Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg with someone who is so completely wedded to Communism, so for me, although he is not my choice, Romney beats FUBO in spades.
For the umpteenth time, no! The actual vote was 7-2 -- with Breyer and Ginsburg joining the majority in deciding that the Gore argument had no merit.
The 5-4 vote came on a secondary issue -- the remedy. Which was to allow Florida to meet its electoral requirements under the Constitution...
Liberals lie.
Yes, I hope the liberals retire AND THE REPUBLICANS HOLD UP CONFIRMATION OF ANY OF THE KENYAN CLOWN’S APPOINTEES—BORK THE HELL OUT OF THEM—UNTIL WE CAN GET SOMEONE ELSE IN THE WHITE HOUSE. :)
Can’t they wait to see who wins and then put in for retirement? I mean I know they are Democrats but so what? They can leave when they dang well please. I can just see it now when the Republicans feel that our conservatives should retire, they will use the ole “but the democrats forced their’s out.....no thank you.
You are making a very good argument for Romney to see the light, step down, and let the Convention pick a strong Conservative for the nomination.
Doesn’t the fact that this issue is being raised now reflect panic on the left? As many have pointed out, it’s a bit late to even manage the process going into the Fall election.
The Dems are in a nice bind. If the leftist Justices stay, the left risks losing the court if (when) O loses. If they resign now, it is a clear signal that O’s crowd is sure he will lose, which will undermine fund-raising and become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I suppose they want Obama to appoint two more liberal candidates to replace them.
Ginsburg may be a liberal, but she’s also Jewish. I sense that she’s both smart and perceptive, and that she sees Obama for who and what he is — either a Muslim sympathizer or an out-and-out Muslim who must keep his beliefs “under wraps” for public consumption.
I sense that regardless of her leftism, deep down she despises him and even in the face of severe health problems refuses to resign and give him the opportunity to “fill HER seat” on the Court.
Of course I could be completely wrong, and she may announce her retirement after the Court adjourns in June.
But if she stays, it’s my guess that she’s “waiting Obama out”.
She’s not “risking” the future of the Court — she’s doing what she believes to be her duty to preserve it.
“He’s a moderate liberal and will pick moderate liberals.”
That may or may not prove true, but has not Romney picked none less than Robert Bork to advise him on judicial nominations? Saw that reported right here on FR....
Mr. Bork represents the gold standard of “conservative judicial thought” and if so, this bodes well for how Romney (and his administration) will choose future nominees...
There is no way he could get away with expediting an Obama Supreme Court pick and still win his reelection.
-PJ
There is a difference between a Liberal, and a radical Leftist. Obama nominated radical Leftists.
It is choice between bad and worse, at best.
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.