If Republicans had 60 seats in the Senate during these appointments and could approve ANY person the President wanted, your theory would be correct. But as the record shows, the DEMONcrats repeatedly destoryed many Republican President S.C. nominees, from Haysworth to Carnwell to Bork.
Let's look at the justices mentioned:
John Paul Stevens (R), 1975
President Ford needed a candidate to replace Justice Douglas, an ULTRA-liberal (appointed by FDR) who was beloved by Dems like a Paul Wellstone of the Senate. If you read "The Brethen" by Bob Woodward, his initial impluse was Robert Bork or Senator Robert Griffith. A Democrat Senator came to Ford and assured him that the Dem-controlled Sentate would NEVER replace "the court's greatest liberal with a nortorius conservative", and promised they were ALREDY going to vote in LOCKSTEP against either on party lines. Griffith was especially hated because he the Senate Dems KNEW his record. Chief Justice Burger then recommended J. Clifford Wallace, a conservative judge from the west coast, and the Dems immediately started looking for dirt on him too. Then Ford suggested Carla Hill, his Sec. of Housing, a right-of-center Republican. His aides rejected the idea because it would smack of croynism. Finally, his whittled his list down to two Republicans with a "middle of the road" reputation that were considered the most likeable and confirmable: Arlin W. Adams and John Paul Stevens. He interviewed both. Adams was cocky and bosterious, Stevens was quiet and modest. Ford picked Stevens, who quitely took his seat and began to move further and further leftward over the years and is now often to the left of Clinton's nominees. In restrospect, I'm sure Ford's aides realize Adams was a better choice, but no way would they get a conservative through that RAT Senate full people concerned about Douglas' "legacy".
Sandra Day O'Connor (R), 1981
Since the Nixon adminstration, the media was worshiping the newfound "empowerment" of woman and urging the appointment of a woman on the Supreme Court. It reached boiling point in 1980 with the movie "First Monday in October", depicted a ficitonal, conservative woman on the Supreme Court. Reagan made a campaign promise to apppoint such a candidate ASAP. Since so many prominate female judges were 'RATs, Reagan decided to go with one that had a repudation as a big GOP party loyalist. He found Judge Sandra Day O'Connor, who had been a very partisan Majority Leader of the Arizona Senate in the early 70s. Reagan quickly went with her while his "honeymood" period ensured he'd have no problems. He didn't, except he didn't bother to check her stance on social issues which became INCREASINGLY important in the 80s and 90s. Sandra turned out to be pretty liberal on social issues, although still a party loyalist (see Bush v. Gore) So yes, this one was the fault of Reagan for picking her quickly and not doing a more through review of her "record".
Anthony Kennedy (R), 1986 Kennedy's appointment was an act of desperation. Reagan BARELY got a conservative in as chief justice because he named a well-repecting sitting Justice (Rehnquist) but the 'RAT Senate was alarmed of moving the court any further to the right and were extremely frustrated knowing they'd be locked out the White House for a long time. To fill Rehnquist's associate justice seat, he picked Robert Bork, an unapologetic conservative who suffered the most vicious and relentless smear campaign of a 'RAT Senate that rejected him simply because they did not like his views. THEN Reagan attempted to nominate Justice Douglas Ginsburg, a lesser-known conservative. The 'RATs hired some guys to find dirt on him round the clock, and "discovered" (big shock) that he tried pot once in college-- which Ginsburg admited. The liberal media reported this as the apocaylse and the Dems launched a "he's not qualifed" campaign so bitter that Reagan quickly withdrew his name without formally submitted it. Reagan then found the little-known judge Anthony Kennedy, who had the same last name as the famous 'RAT family and was known by his friends and collugues to be very conservative but was extremely quiet about it and had a choir-boy spotless background. Reagan went with him with the 'RATs froathing-at-the-mouth, making sure it was taken care of before midterm elections. The 'RATs had to confirm him, and Anthony Kennedy DID vote reliably conservative (as expected) when he got on the court. But Kennedy's certainly no conservative activist, and has shown himself to be heavily influenced by public opinion and liberal colluges on the court, so he caves from time to time. In any case, it's amazing even THIS guy was confirmed.
David Souter (R), 1990 Admittedly, this one is solely the fault of the Bush adminstration. Bush had just been elected and needed someone to replace the justice Brennan, an old liberal who had stayed there forever and people lost interest in him. Bush advisior John Sununu Sr., a country-clubber from New England, recommened someone from his home state, a newly appointed member of the New Hamshpire Supreme Court. This guy was a political cipher had absolutely NO track record on the court, but Sununu "assured" Bush that he had meet Souter on several occasions and the would be a easily confirmable "home run for conservatives". Bush told Souter he was under consideration and an excited Souter promised Bush he was with him. President Bush I was also pretty much a "moderate" Republican and the type of guy who doesn't like going for the juglular. He went with it and the Dems couldn't find anything to object to so they went along with it. As soon as Souter got on the court, he dropped the "conservative" act, kept Brennen's liberal clerks, and basically went along with whatever they wanted. When it came time to replace THEM, he had them pick their own successors (more liberal law school students) and so on and so. Souter's been a liberal twerp who sells his soul to the highest bidder. INCREDIBLY, the New Hampshire GOP establishment has never learned their lesson from this, as they now dumbed conservatives in the primary and picked even more RINOs to control their state (NH got an "A" rating from NARAL last year) Sununu Jr. is now their Senator as they dumped incumbant Bob Smith (whom the RINOs despise), and another Bush + another Sununu "advisor") are giving all indidications that history will repeat itself with Alberto Gonzalez.
So out of the four named here, two were appointed by Republicans because the 'RATs virtually held them as gunpoint, and a third was appointed because the media insisetd on someone with her profile-- although admittedly Reagan should have found a more conservative female judge (bear in mind there wern't exactly a BIG supply of qualified GOP female judges to pick from in 1980) Souter is the only one who's appointment is pure incompetance from a Republican adminstration. Hey, blame the NH "Republicans" and the "electable" RINOs they pick in the primary.
Matter of fact, I wonder if that explains the number of new posters showing up here on FR these days to praise these decisions. Last time I remeber something like that happening is when the White House was after Trent Lott. (At least the new posters of that time quickly went away after the flap was over. Maybe that will happen again.)
Packing poop here is not the real issue here folks. Whether there is or is not a law, perverts will pack poop. What we should be addressing here is how the Supreme Court is completely inflated on the Supreme side of their roles.
While their role is to defend the US Constitutional law-which guarantees that States have the right to determine this decision and not the Supreme Court-they are creating and destroying law by the lack of virtue in their decisions.
While this is just another barrage of the Supreme Courts usurpation of Constitutional rule of law, now they have effectively eroded the States freedom to determine their own moral destinies.
We Americans should not be so naive as to think there are succinct differences between the two parties. In my minds eye, they are ideological twins.
Arrowhead-----packin poop--->
Karl Rove.
The only thing that history can teach us is that to continue along this path is laying the foundation for a bloody revolution/civil war.
It appears that this whole thing began as a set-up. I don't like the idea that a USSC landmark ruling evolved out of a deception. I have some other concerns over this matter:
Before I begin I will give my viewpoint on this law. I see it as a moral statement and not as a law. I don't know how many times it was enforced or what the terms of punishment were whether by fine or jail time.
1. The Texas law covers an action that is basically undetectable if it occurs in private. The law should have stated "sodomy performed by members of the same sex in public view".
2. I don't see it as discriminating because it applies to all individuals. Homosexuality is an action by individuals. I have yet to see proof beyond a doubt that homosexuality is genetically caused. But if it were I don't believe anyone could prove that it would apply to all homosexuals. Discrimination against an action?
3. What if there were a law that nudists should not undress in public. Should individuals who belong to nudist colonies claim discrimination? Would the Supreme Court hear it?
4. Where is the privacy concept referenced in the 14th Amendment that anchors this and the Roe rulings, both landmark decisions?
5. The 10th Amendment gives the states the right to make their own laws which no doubt reflects their morals and ethics. I see the USSC ruling as an infringement on our freedom.
6. I don't care what people do in the privacy of their homes but I do care when some of these groups go to our schools and attempt to indoctrinate our children. I want them to keep the hell away from our children. That is why I believe this law that the USSC struck down should have stood if only to serve as a reminder that we don't want to see this type of behavior in public and we don't want it in our public schools being shoved onto our children.
Put another way:
"In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, be finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing." - Lysander Spooner
I for one, am thankful for a decision that reaffirms that Americans have rights beyond just those enumerated by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I am thankful for a decision that puts Big Brother government in its place.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.