Skip to comments.Court balance in play this election
Posted on 04/29/2012 6:40:28 AM PDT by Clintonfatigued
The stakes in this year's election are higher than normal because the next president may have the unusual opportunity to impact the ideological direction of the Supreme Court, untypical of any one presidential term.
During the next presidential term, starting in January 2013, of the nine Supreme Court justices, "three of the justices will be in their 80s," notes Clint Bolick, author of the new book, "Two-Fer: Electing a President and a Supreme Court."
"[W]hoever is elected in November may have the rare chance to reinforce or alter the courts balance," he said.
And with Supreme Court rulings like Citizens United in 2010 and perhaps the upcoming decisions on Obamacare and the federal government's lawsuit against Arizona's illegal-immigration law hinging on the opinion of a single justice and setting longstanding precedents, the court's balance ought to be top of mind for voters this year.
There is no guarantee when a justice will retire nor can they be forced to do so. Supreme Court justices are constitutionally guaranteed a life term and can serve for as long as they wish to.
Of those justices reaching their eighties in the next presidential term, two of the three are regarded as being on the conservative side of the court. Among the liberals, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg turns 80 in 2013. Conservative Antonin Scalia, 76, turns 80 in 2016. Anthony Kennedy, often portrayed as the swing vote on the typically divided court, turns 77 this summer and 80 in 2015.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
Not even the finest wine could induce me to drink what I already know to be cyanide.
And you should quit fooling yourself. Romney is already jerking the GOP hard to the left, a process that is only going to grow more acute as they gain more power. You can take that to the bank.
I take it from your response that you can’t name a single conservative Romney named to the courts in Massachusetts.
It didn't come to that of course, but that was some serious discussion for a while.
You better believe that Obama would interpret "advice and consent" in whatever way he needs it to, despite whatever Democrats were saying at the time. When has the Constitution ever mattered to him before?
BTW, I found this little gem as I was trying to figure out which Justice was the subject of my hazy recollection:
As we all know, theres been a lot of discussion in the country about how the Senate should approach this confirmation process. There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.
I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judges philosophy, ideology, and record.
Romney isn’t the nominee yet. But if he is elected President, he’ll do what he thinks is best for his career.
“All you Romney bashers on FR need to put on your big boy pants and consider what a Eric Holder nomination to the Supreme Court would mean.”
And you Rino loving bullies need to can the insults and work on persuading people. You act as arrogant as the libs.
“you Rino loving bullies need to can the insults and work on persuading people. You act as arrogant as the libs.”
As someone who doesn’t engage in personal attacks, give me a shot at persuading you.
I don’t like Mitt Romney and won’t vote for him in the primary (May 8 in my home state). I still hope for a brokered convention, though I’m becoming resigned to Romney’s nomination. But if Romney is the nominee, we will have a choice. We can either elect an ambitous political weathervane who essentiall governs by opinion poll, or we can reelect a President who is a willing tool of people who want to destroy the United States and its people. I know it’s a bad choice. But we can survive a President Romney. A second Obama term will cause irreversable damage.
I can't be fear-mongered into giving up my faith, self-evident truth, or the principles upon which American liberty depends.
You’ve convinced me. I’ve seen the light.
I’m voting for Obama in the general election so we don’t get any Mitt appointments to the Supreme Court.
In order to support Mitt Romney you have to leave your principles at the door.
Good luck surviving without your principles.
And God help a country in which the people at large have abandoned all principle.
Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee and only a fool would think otherwise.
Given that Romney has been political chameleon his whole career were we can have an effect is the background he plays against. VP, platform, Cabinet - even the House and Senate are all in play and ripe for conservative agitation.
It is the opposite of this can do spirit that I cannot accept. The crying, whining, screaming and kicking that because my guy didn't win I'm taking my toys and running home. Grow up people.
Why? I’m just agreeing with you.
No need to vote for Mitt - we don’t want him picking any SC Justices.
So I’ll vote for Obama to be sure Mitt don’t get in. It’s what you want isn’t it? Mitt defeated?
No you’re not.
There are the down-ballot races. A number of Republican primaries for Senate and House feature establishment RINO’s and TEA Party conservatives. I’m working to defeat my home state RINO U.S. Senator. If a Romney nomination is inevitable, concentrate on electing strong conservative Constitutionalists for the other offices.
Do you want Mitt, as the Republican candidate, elected to the office of President?
A simple Yes or No will do.
Clinton (either or both),
Maybe someone cerebral, like Ried, or pelosi?
The possibilities are endless, and who is to stop him? Bohner? Mcconnel? Anyone out there?
Principle number one is to stay alive,
Number two is to flush liberals down the toilet, permanently.
No, I don’t support pro-choice democrats.
I didn't vote for him - nor did Romney even win our state's primary.
This election was lost for Conservatives way back when Ryan declined and no electable alternative was found.