Every single Democratic appointee voted against Bush in Bush v. Gore. Every single Democratic appointee voted against our Second Amendment rights in Heller, and every single Democratic appointee voted to restrict free political speech in Heller. Every single vote on the "right" side of those cases was a Republican appointee.
You had two stray GOP appointees -- Souter and Stevens -- also side with the Democrats, but without GOP appointees, all three cases would have been lost.
What's your beef with the 15th Amendment?
In any case, this is no longer the 19th century, but the 21st. The role of the Court has changed, unfortunately. And if you're seriously saying that it makes no difference whether Hillary Clinton and a Democratic Senate is appointing/confirming judges versus Trump/Republican Senate, I think you're delusional.
I’m hardly confusing anything,simply pointing to the record.
Two stray GOP appointees? Really! Hold the jokes till April Fool’s day.
Eisenhower gave us Brennan and Warren while Nixon gave us Blackmun; three of the most radical hard left Justices in our history and whose impact continues to reverberate.
In simple English, the nostrum that the go along to get along GOP stands for strict interpretation of the Constitution, is utter fantasy, having about the same validity as a square circle.
As for the role of the Court changing; the vital question is why we have allowed the Court to assume powers and roles that were never enumerated and obviously never intended. Having lived abroad for some 20 years, primarily in Europe, no nation allows its citizens and their elected parliamentary representatives to be “told” by pretentious and unelected Judges, w/a law credential; what the laws they enact and support mean. NONE!
Sadly, changing our attitude toward SCOTUS would require will, an extinct virtue given our present political environment,
I'm aware of the history of the Court. But the fact that some GOP Presidents have nominated some justices that turned out to be more liberal than anticipated does not mean there is no general difference between the kind of nominees each party tends to select. You're confusing the exceptions with the rule.
All (D)ummycrat appointees are disasters, and are usually happily confirmed by (R)epublicrats. That's bad enough.
But unfortunately, our guys suck at appointments far worse than you describe ...
Eisenhower ... 1 for 4 ... .250 ... Warren, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart Nixon ........ 1 for 4 ... .250 ... Burger, Blackmum, Powell, Rehnquist Ford ......... 0 for 1 ... .000 ... Stevens Reagan ....... 1 for 3 ... .333 ... O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy Bush41 ....... 1 for 2 ... .500 ... Souter, Thomas Bush43 ....... 1 for 2 ... .500 ... Roberts, Alito
That's 5 reliable conservatives out of our last 16. The exceptions to the rule are the good ones and we should be mad as hell right now.
And to anyone that assumes Cruz would be any better, well no. He has substantial culpability in the Roberts appointment. Bush43 screwed up bad by not making that pick an associate justice and simultaneously promoting Thomas or Scalia to the big chair. Anyway, the point is that there is nothing we can predict about what kind of appointments will result from which candidate. Anyone who says so with certainty is lying.