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...
The difference is simple. If Obama wins, we will get the most liberal activist judges he can find. If Romney wins we at least have a chance to influence who is appointed, like we did with President Bush and Miers. And it is not just about the Supreme Court, it is also about all federal judges.
We have zero chance to influence who Obama picks. And if the senate doesn’t want to confirm, he may just try to make recess appointments.
This is crucial, all legislation the left doesn’t like ends up in court.
Gotta disagree...whoever wins the primary next month will win the general election..no way Utah elects a Dem...but Orin will play hardball..oppose any Obama nomination...
Now, if Hatch loses the primary and decides to go rogue like Specter and stick it to Republicans...
-PJ
ping for later
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.