The Right’s Supreme Court Acquiescence

Although one can understand Estrada’s personal desire to be magnanimous in defeat, his letter is ill-advised.

From a purely tactical stand-point, the implications of what Estrada is saying are obvious: If the Democrats block nominees on ideological grounds -- as they did with Estrada -- and the Republicans rely on traditional credentials, eschewing ideology, we will wind up with a court of well-credentialed liberals.

We are one vote away from the confiscation of every privately owned gun.

We are one vote away from the complete Stalinist eradication of every Christian symbol from public life.

We are one vote away from the insane notion that the Constitution guarantees full and complete health care, a home and a job to everyone who wants one.

We are one vote away from the forced governmental dismantling of the First Amendment, through every medium including the internet and the radio.

We are one vote away from New Haven Fire Fighters becoming the law of the land, when your child’s grades, years of study, and hard work are thrown down the sewer of political correctness if the racial outcome does not meet the pyscho-left’s definition of racial equality.

We are one vote away from the eradication of property rights.

We are one vote away from the takeover of private industry by the government.

We are one vote away from mandated sterilizations and the decree that humans and their breath are a form of pollution.

We are one vote away from Big Brother - just one, and they will not relent because these appointments are of a very extremist nature with a leftist political agenda. They mean to change America through the will of leftist judges - and not through the ballot box because their ideology is rejected.

Our sacred Bill of Rights will be gone. The power of the State will not be stopped.

We obviously should amend the Constitution to change the way that the justices of SCOTUS are selected. George W. Bush did well (after the Meirs stumble), but Reagan and GHW Bush appointments were only mostly good, and Nixon and Eisenhower weren't that great either. And that's not even counting the ones the Democrats have put on the court . . . which, fortunately, haven't been as numerous in proportion to number of years that they have controlled the White House.
I propose two possible changes:

Establish the term of office of a SCOTUS justice at 22 years, and set the number of justices at 11 - so that each president would get two nominations per term. Thus, any given president could name only 4 out of 11 justices.

Take the Senate out of the process, and only allow presidents to name appellate judges from a short list which he has published before the presidential election.
That would make the tenor of the courts an issue in presidential elections, but would not make the judges political candidates in their own right. And let's face it, the present system allows Democratic senators to demagog SCOTUS nominees shamelessly without enabling Republican senators to exert similar moderating influence on the Democrats' nominees.
IMHO the voting public would, over time, exert at least as much of a moderating influence on the listing of radicals as possible SCOTUS justices as the Senate does on the actual nominees.

Here are a few selected FReeper comments to date:

Chief Justice Roberts:

Kagan Asked Court to ‘Embrace Theory of First Amendment That Would Allow Censorship Not Only of Radio and Television Broadcasts, But Pamphlets and Posters’

In another article, titled “Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V,” she writes, “I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the un-coerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation.”
Solicitor General Elena Kagan, President Barack Obama’s nominee to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court, helped craft President Bill Clinton’s political strategy for sustaining his veto of the partial-birth abortion ban in 1997. As a result of Clinton’s successful veto that year, the ban was not enacted until 2003, when it was signed by President George Bush.
I can settle the question for everyone on the site.(Harvard Connections, you know.) Kagan is gayer than Christmas in Port-au-Prince.

She’s in the back of the closet, just like Barney Frank was until he was outed and heroically made a virtue out of being a god-curséd sodomite SOB, as well as a crook.

Now, about her hard-core, real-orders-from-the-Kremlin-belong-to-a-cell, commie family. Dad was a big time commie union infiltrator.

Mommie was a commie.

Bro still is a big-time commie.

These Kagans are NYC commies from the 1930’s, 1940’s, type of people. Elena? Red Diaper baby type. Can sing the “Internationale,” but not the SSB.

Pull the old Kagan FBI Files.

Look’em up in the VENONA files. I hope every Republican Senator does.

You don’t have to have very many brain cells to know that Elena Kagan is a Pluto-bound abortion-loving socialist. The thought of that grinning overfed New York dyke on our Supreme Court for the next 30-40 years makes me weep for my country.

Her heroes: Abner Mikva, Thurgood Marshall, Cass Sunstein (who believes the Constitution requires taxpayers to fund abortion and has proposed abolishing marriage - the pure Communist line since 1917) and Aharon Barak Israeli Supreme Court justice Aharon Barak (who has been called Israel’s “Big Brother”)

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.