Posted on 07/10/2007 6:52:06 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
To follow up on Mark I and his redhot post "Packing the Court", which was a discussion on the post by Matthew Franck of National Review's Bench Memo's blog, the US Supreme Court should be a large focus on the 2008 Presidential race. Matthew makes the note that by 2016, only 3 current justices will be under 80 years of age. Those justice's are Thomas, Roberts, and Alito. Looking back on the past 40 years of US Supreme Court appointments, the number of US Supreme Court vacancies actually come in waves.
During the 8 years of Nixon/Ford, 1968 until 1976, there were 5 appointments to the US Supreme Court. They were Burger, Blackmun, Rehnquist, and Powell for Nixon, and Stevens for Ford.
Then for the next 10 years, from 1976 until 1986, there was only 1 US Supreme Court appointment, O'Connor by Reagan in 1981.
From 1986 until 1994, and 8 year timeframe (the last 2 years of Reagan, Bush 1 term, and the 1st two years of Clinon), there were 6 appointments. They were Scalia and Kennedy for Reagan, Thomas and Souter for Bush I, and Ginsberg and Breyer for Clinton.
From 1994 until 2004, a period of 10 years, there were no appointments made.
From 2005 until the present, there have been 2 appointments made by George W Bush, Roberts and Alito.
Basically for the last 40 years, there have been stretches of 5 appointments in 8 years, followed by 1 appointment in 10 years, followed by 6 appointments in 8 years, followed by 0 appointments in 10 years, and we are now just starting the next 10 year time frame.
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
All I know is that whoever is there, the conservatives come up on the short end of 5-4 and 6-3 votes over and over.
This is THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE of the upcoming election.
There won’t be any retirements in the next two years, but there could still be a vacancy.
Actually, the outcomes have been getting better lately.
The winner in November 2008 will get to place the judges that will determine America's future in the next 25 years.
I hope it will be Fred who puts forward the nomination.
If the DemocRATS win the White House, three Supreme Court judges (Stevens, Ginsberg, & Souter) will retire.
Have you been in a coma the past two months?
I have forgotten what those recent 5-4 decisions favorable to conservatives were. Wasn’t one on the partial birth abortion ban? It won’t make any difference, as physicians will change the method of late-term abortion.
A lot of recent 5-4 rulings recently making libs mad.
Well, the democrats have been known to create a vacancy when they needed to.
The most important thing President Bush has done during his time in office—putting aside the War on Terror—is his two Supreme Court appointments.
There was a bit of a detour with Harriet Miers, but that was a mistake that he learned from, thank God, and his second appointment was as good as, or better than, his first.
That’s why it’s so important that Rudy Giuliani must not be nominated, because it will put pro-life voters in an impossible position if he is. We need someone who will be reliable on court appointments, and also someone who can keep the country on his side, as Bush managed to do on this issue. The Democrats absolutely hated what he was doing, and they had enough votes to block it, but they didn’t dare do so.
Bush is no longer in such a position. So the 2008 election will be crucial for the next twenty years. If Rudy is nominated, he simply cannot be permitted to be elected. Which would give us the hildabeast and hopefully enough Republican senators to block her nominations. But that would be a terrible situation to be in. It’s absolutely vital to nominate a pro-life Republican, whether or not you are pro-life yourself, or the conservative coalition will do down in flames for 20 years.
That is quite true. It is important to remember that when Bush appointed John Roberts and Samuel Alito, he and Senate Republicans were in a position of strength. That’s not the case now, although it could change. It looks like Democrats will make gains in the U.S. Senate next year, unfortunately. And it also looks unlikely that Bush will get to fill another vacancy.
It’s important for the next President (if he’s a Republican) to nominate a pro-life Constitutionalist with impeccable qualifications, strong experience, and a limited paper trail.
“All I know is that whoever is there, the conservatives come up on the short end of 5-4 and 6-3 votes over and over.”
Eau Contraire, friend. For the past year plus, the 5-4 decisions have been coming down on the side of US. The wimp side has been composed of Breyer, Souter, Stevens and Ruth Buzzi; we’ve been getting the other 5 votes.
While it’s true that Stevens and Buzzi will probably retire if a Dim is elected Prez, the degree of liberalism of their replacements probably won’t be worse than the current situation, it may even be a bit more in our favor.
When 1 of the justices is 87 years old, nothing is unlikely.
If he does get a 3rd pick, the Court becomes less important in 2008.
True, but if the GOP retains the White House, Ginsberg and Souter will hang on for 4 more years.
“The winner in November 2008 will get to place the judges that will determine America’s future in the next 25 years.”
This is not true. The average age of the Conservative side is much, much lower than the average age of the Liberal side. We have the reins for quite a while to come. Check out the age by Justice and you’ll see what I mean.
Who’s the oldest? Stevens?
Yeah. For what it’s worth, I’ve read that life insurance companies peg a man at his age with a 30-35% chance of death in the next calendar year.
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.