Posted on 11/10/2008 7:09:07 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
Thank conservatives for kicking up a fuss, or we would have Meyers and Gonzales instead of Roberts and Alito.
Except for the fact that Obama has learned one thing from recent Republican appointees - put them in young, in their fifties at the oldest. That way they can stay for a good 25 years. I would rather have the liberals at 88 and 75 than 50 and 55 (Roberts' and Alito's ages at appointment).
The author suffers from the Mary Hartmann Mary Hartmann disease.
Republicans need to put up just enough of a fight to force the dems to proclaim that a liberal leaning Justice must be replaced in kind. That way, when a conservative Justice comes along we can say the same.
I read somewhere that he was only a lecturer. If this is true, then teh media is REALLY marketing this guy.
A blind Justice?
The nice thing about an Obama replacement for Stevens is that it would not at all affect the balance and we could stop hearing about his liberal opinions being from a Republican appointee. He can replace Souter, too.
Pray for the good health of Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy. Roberts seems to have the ability to sway Kennedy on major issues.
Worst case scenario read:
http://focusfamaction.edgeboss.net/download/focusfamaction/pdfs/10-22-08_2012letter.pdf
The major concern here, of course, is if Obama had the chance to replace the conservative Scalia or the centrist Anthony Kennedy. Both of them are in their early 70s and in good health. If Obama is a one term President, those seats should be fine, but there's no telling if they could last 8 years of this marxist (both would be 80 by 2016)
The ironic thing is Bush made a big deal in 2000 of being eager to appoint the first 'Hispanic justice' and never followed through, instead trying to enrich his credentials with "Hispanics" by promoting amnesty (kinda like how Ford kept hinting he's appoint the first female justice but it didn't happen until Reagan in '81).
While Bush's appointments were good, they probably wouldn't be the direction I would have taken the court. Replacing Rehnquist with Roberts just kept the same ideological tilt as before. I would have kept Roberts as the original choice to replace Sandra Day O'Conner, elevated Thomas to replace Rehnquist as C.J. (Thomas was the only baby boomer judge at the time and will probably last at least 15 years as CJ, and he'd make history as the first black CJ), put Janice Rogers Brown (of the California Supreme Court) or Raoul Cantero (of the Florida Supreme Court) to replace Thomas as Associate Justice. Ideally I'd have both of them on the court. (I like idea of elevating STATE supreme judges to the U.S. Supreme Court, in much the same way Governors often end up as President)
Of course, there is the remote possibility that Obama will attempt to appoint a person he THINKS is a hardcore socialist, only to watch that Judge morph into a DINO, as was the case when JFK appointed Byron White as a favor to organized labor. (proving once again that Ann Coulter's "facts" about a Dem president never "accidentally" appointing a conservative are false and show her ignorance of the historical record). This is possible due to the fact Obama's a lightweight and totally inexperienced, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.
Overall, I think the last 50 years has made the case that we need to look into my suggestion of letting American voters weigh in on U.S. Supreme Court judges. This, of course, is the exact opposite direction that some freepers would like to go, in that they think life would be so much better if crooked state legislatures were appointing Senators for life (it will be a cold day in hell before I let Emil Jones pick my Senators for me. We would have NEVER gotten Peter Fitzgerald in the Senate if these "conservatives" got their way and let big government made the decision)
An directly elected U.S. Supreme Court, like we have in Illinois and Texas, would be the ideal choice, though it will probably never happen as it requires a constitutional amendment. At the very least, voters should have the power of retention over the president's judicial picks, as is the case in the vast majority of American states. I am fairly certainly, however, that Republican voters would have selected better judges than Souter and Stevens. Hell, Democrat voters would probably even do a better job of vetting judges than the kind of creeps that Clinton and Obama foisted on us.
We need to fast and pray for their health and safety, because they stand between the United States and devastation.
Thank the 20 percenters.. and I plan to remind them every day for the next four years.
I remember hearing of this when Byron White retired in '93. He had been appointed by a Democrat : JFK. He never really changed his politics much in his 30+ years on the USSC, which meant that the extreme leftward lurch of the Democrats during those decades had the effect of redefining White from conservative to liberal.
You might remember him as the dissenter on Roe v Wade who correctly and bitingly described it as "an exercise in raw judicial power".
But even though he had much, much more in common with Republicans than with Democrats by 1990 when he was about ready to retire, he purposely delayed his retirement while the GOP was still in the White House, and waited until just after Clinton took office. Even though a Republican-appointed Justice would have been much more in tune with his judicial philosophy, he remained true to the old traditional "honorable" way of doing things, and retired during a Democrat administration.
And a few years before that, Democrat Justice Thurgood Marshall attempted to do the same. (Although it's unclear whether he did this out of a sense of honor, or because he had lurched leftward with the post-60s Democrats and desperately wanted to be replaced with someone of his same persuasion). But the Democrats remained in the wilderness outside the White House walls for so long - 12 years to be exact - that Marshall's health made it impossible for him to outlast Reagan and GHW Bush.
So now, let's look at J. P. Stevens. He was appointed by a Republican - Nixon. This means that following the honorable old tradition would require him to attempt to retire during a GOP Presidency. He's had that chance for the past 8 years. What do you think are the odds that he either plans to retire in the next 2 months, or to outlast the upcoming Democrat reign?
Billy, you've got to remember that the Democrats promised Dubya a civil war if he attempted to nominate anyone other than a White (and essentially male) member to the highest level courts. Their tactics were audaciously racist, because they didn't want any prominent Conservative non-Whites that might serve as national leaders. Don't you remember Miguel Estrada ? The leftist groups told Durbin to stop him at all costs because of what he represented. I personally wish Dubya had more aggressively supported non-Caucasian Conservative appointments and called the Democrats out as racists.
"I would have kept Roberts as the original choice to replace Sandra Day O'Conner, elevated Thomas to replace Rehnquist as C.J. (Thomas was the only baby boomer judge at the time and will probably last at least 15 years as CJ, and he'd make history as the first black CJ), put Janice Rogers Brown (of the California Supreme Court) or Raoul Cantero (of the Florida Supreme Court) to replace Thomas as Associate Justice. Ideally I'd have both of them on the court. (I like idea of elevating STATE supreme judges to the U.S. Supreme Court, in much the same way Governors often end up as President)"
Brown at least managed to get elevated to a federal judgeship, not without considerable difficulty. Cantero resigned his position on the FL court a few months ago and apparently went back to the private sector (Crist replaced him with a Caucasian, the former Congressman Charlie Canady, an excellent choice, albeit there are now no Hispanics on the FL court of either party). Some state Justices would make good elevations to SCOTUS, but we mustn't discount existing federal judges (although I'd tend to appoint ones as young as possible. If we could get ones in their 30s, even better. They could stand to serve 50 years on the court).
Re: Elected SCOTUS
I think that is far more problematic than you would think. Let's presume they'd be elected at-large across the country for, say, 6-year terms, which would allow for 3 to be voted on every 2 years. I think the campaign process would be a nightmare having to go from coast to coast and I couldn't even picture Clarence Thomas on the court under those circumstances. You'd have hundreds of millions of dollars spent just over a single Justice. They'd be so beholden to contributors and those "special interests" that they'd be instantly compromised once on the bench and their rulings would all be all but predictable, and not necessarily even grounded on the Constitution or rule of law. However flawed the process is now, it would be far worse under those circumstances... but...
...another suggestion would be for potential "yes" or "no" national retention votes. That way it would make the Justices accountable to a degree without having to go through the aforementioned nightmare of campaigning nationally like a President. We probably could've taken out Stevens and Ginsburg under such circumstances, but it would also depend upon whom was President at the time. Assuming they'd face a retention at the nearest election after their appointment, and then 6 years hence, Stevens would've probably been retained in 1976 less than a full year in, and perhaps could've been taken out in 1982 or 1988, and most assuredly in 1994 -- but then it would've been moot, since Clinton would've just appointed another moonbat in his place, for which we wouldn't have been able to dump until at least 2002.
After having (under our state law) an unconstitutional Missouri-style selection process, where a Governor is literally forced to choose from candidates he may not even want (they're selected by an exclusive trial lawyers board, and almost always liberal Democrats, with occasionally a moderate Republican slipping in -- and our ex-RINO Governor was only given ultralib choices. Bredesen, however, tried to preempt the panel and TOLD them he wanted a specific Black nominee. They didn't like being told what to do and sent up choices that angered him, which ironically included a rational Republican. In a fit of pique, Bredesen appointed that Republican, but he didn't want to. Now our court is all-White after an old Black moonbat he was seeking to replace quit). I tend to favor (at state level) party nominees for the state Supremes as opposed to up or down approvals. But we rarely toss judges. We did toss out a judge that Gov. McWherter installed who was a horrible liberal that was led around by the Black moonbat, a White lady. But she was only replaced by another liberal woman that was scarcely different that our RINO was forced to pick. The Black moonbat was the one that most especially needed tossing, but he survived an attempt to bounce him off the court when the media and the rodents made it a racial issue and accused the GOP of the usual garbage. But the guy WAS a terrible judge. Pro-criminal and pathologically anti-capital punishment no matter how heinous the crime. I denounced when they named our new local justice building downtown after him (although perhaps it was poetic justice being named for him. The building has been plagued with all sorts of problems since its completion).
It’s interesting that Byron White almost didn’t end up on the court at all. JFK was intending on naming the first Black to the court in 1962 and had settled on former Virgin Islands Governor and federal Judge William Hastie. Hastie had actually been Thurgood Marshall’s law professor. But Hastie was actually a judicial Conservative and faced opposition from two fronts. Southern Democrats would be damned to see a Black on the court, and Earl Warren would be damned to see a Conservative, so Hastie was put on the back burner and White got the nod. JFK was going to slip Hastie in at some point in the future, but with his assassination, he was forgotten and LBJ appointed far more moonbattier appointees, including Marshall (who was, of course, a perfectly fine and successful lawyer, but absolutely execrable jurist who brought a set agenda to the court on par with the equally dreadful Earl Warren, the worst SCOTUS Chief in the history of the country). President Ford would’ve gotten a second appointee on the court had Hastie served until his death in 1976 who more than likely would’ve been a Stevens clone.
How do we know we haven’t already had one?
Certainly, 0bama will nominate judges who rule based on the chic political correctness of the day rather than concern themselves with that antiquated old parchment known as the Constitution, but as long as we have four justices who take the Constitution seriously and one who flips a coin on it, the damage could be limited.
Our one and only consolation is that the hyper-partisan hack 0bama will likely only be replacing liberals with liberals. Still, if only we had won the election and been given the opportunity to replace liberals with decent judges, America might have had the chance to return from the dead.
Oh well.
That’s a good one.
If one of ours get’s sick or something the nation is ****ed.
We really needed Stevens and/or Ginsberg to pass on in 2005.
They shouldn’t “play by the rules”. Obama must at least be forced to pick a ‘moderate’. No Gingsberg’s their views disqualify them.
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.