Skip to comments.Why are Republicans so awful at picking Supreme Court justices?
Posted on 07/02/2012 1:11:26 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.s decision to side with the courts liberal bloc and uphold Obamacare raises an important question for conservatives: Why are Republicans so awful at picking Supreme Court justices? Democrats have been virtually flawless in appointing reliable liberals to the court. Yet Republicans, more often than not, appoint justices who vote with the other side on critical decisions.
Just compare the records over the last three decades. Democrats have appointed four justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen G. Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. All have been consistent liberals on the bench. Republicans, by contrast, have picked seven justices. Of Ronald Reagans three appointees (Sandra Day OConnor, Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy) only Scalia has been a consistent conservative.
George H.W. Bush appointed one solid conservative (Clarence Thomas) and one disastrous liberal (David Souter). With George W. Bushs appointments of Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Roberts, conservatives thought finally they had broken the mold and put two rock-ribbed conservatives on the bench until last week, that is, when Roberts broke with the conservatives and cast the deciding vote to uphold the largest expansion of federal power in decades.
So Democrats are four-for-four a perfect record. Republicans are not even batting .500.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
They are lawyers.
Spineless cowards...all of them!
Dems pick activists, GOPers pick academics
Republicans are bad at picking anything it seems...even Presidential candidates...McCain..now Romney.
The problem is much deeper than anyone is willing to admit.
Because Republicans are like Rodney “Can’t we all just get along” King.
Because they cave in to liberals. They “cross the aisle”. Cause they’re “passionate conservatives”. They’re weak kneed, lilly livered and linguini spined.
It’s not that they’re “bad” at picking them, as that GOP presidents know the gauntlet that the dimwit liberals in the Senate will put their nominees through the wringer, not to mention the media jackals digging through their trash. As a result, they pick “safe” judges that can get past the committee and after being threatened and beat up during the process, the nominees tend to shy away from being assertive in their conservative opinion.
Lawyers,in this country at least,are overwhelmingly RATS.Most are right up front regarding their Marxist views but some aren’t.So,statistically speaking,it’s far more likely that a Marxist would be mistaken for a respectable lawyer then the other way around.Plus,when RAT Senators have any say in who’s sent to the bench you *know* there’s gonna be trouble.
Because law students are indoctrinated in liberal ivy league universities and no matter what they may spout in hearings, in their hearts they are lying liberals.
The bigger question is: Why do We suck AT ELECTING them?
Republicans are so afraid of the media, they wet their pants when they think of even nominating a real conservative judge.
And... liberals have no problem sticking with their ideology over God and country. So, if you pick a liberal, they are liberal above all else.
Yes, the President appoints nominees, but let's not also forget how weak these three Republicans were when it came to confirming Democrat nominees.
Compare the statements of any of these three to the statements from Kennedy or Schumer regarding Republican nominees.
Republicans are simply unwilling to get in the mud and fight back. Things won't change until the generation of Hatch and McConnell are gone from the Senate.
Because they(SCOTUS) are LAWYERS and LAWYER are by in large SCUM!
Because all Republican presidents since WWII have not been conservatives, and they weren’t trying to pick strict constructionist justices (no matter what some of them might have said).
And, especially since Bork, Republicans are cowed and often not bold enough to nominate a true and known conservative (unlike the Dims who nominate ACLU chief consuls). Republicans eliminate, or allow Dims to eliminate, some of their best candidates at the outset.
True strict constructionists are known and have track records on the courts, but few if any of them will ever be nominated.
And all too many Republicans still think a president should be able to put whoever they choose on the court, and will not “Bork” a Dim nominee for reasons of judicial philosophy.
Residual queasiness and lack of nerve brought about by the battles over Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork.
Ted Kennedy knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he picked those fights.
This tells me that a President Mitt Romney isn’t going to do any better.
If Romney were to win, We’re probably going to have at best, another John Roberts if one of these justices retires.
The justices seem to have a conservative background; during the vetting process, their voting history is the most definitive evidence. But somehow, once they get into the Beltway culture, they feel the need to “grow” into the office.
By contrast, notice how the leftist justices NEVER.. EVER lurch from their ideology?
how many are educated at harvard?
how many are DOJ hacks first?
leftist law school professors mush their brains first.
perhaps we should not have all these USSC judges from the same school.
Because conservatives aren’t nominating true, deep conservatives but moderates who swing left.
A big part of the problem is when the Democrats nominate a justice who is in the one tenth of one percent of the far left, the Republicans just roll over and play dead.
We probably are going to have at least three, maybe 4 justices retire in the next four years; Ginsburg, Scalia, Kennedy, or Breyer.
Roberts made some good votes before the Arizona and ObamaCare votes. I think he was on the right side but somebody got to him and got to him a big way.
I don’t know if he was trying to save the “standing” of the SCOTUS or if he was blackmailed, but, until the last second, he was on the right side of the ObamaCare legislation.
Now, of course, he need to change his name to Taney. Basicly he has just made us all slaves to the Federal government (more so than we were).
Wanna give up and leave? Exit tax... hand it ALL over...
And there are far too many Harvard grads and other Ivy Leaguers throughout our federal government. The Ivy League has in many ways become a cesspool of political correctness, affirmative action and general anti-Americanism.
RINOs run things. The picks are not mistakes, they go as intended.
I wonder how many of his good votes were in the majority on major cases, and how many were in the minority where Kennedy cast the deciding vote with the leftist on the court? But on Obamacare, Roberts had to be the deciding vote with the leftists.
It's a well known trick to cast a vote to maintain a supposed ideological tilt as long as one's real preferred outcome is assured. Some congressmen and senators do it often. The Blue Dog Dims did that often until their votes were absolutely necessary for the liberal cause.
Republicans try to placate the Left in the Senate by picking “conservative” justices that can pass muster as not being TOO conservative. Liberal presidents on the other hand pick the most liberal justices they can find because they know the Republican Senators like Dick Lugar will do the advice and consent thing and then vote for anybody the president chooses whether they agree with the nominees views.
It is because we expect our Supreme Court justices to THINK. We expect them to look at the case in front of them and interpret it in the context of an existing Constitution.
Liberals expect their judges to vote on the basis of liberal dogma.
It IS that simple.
The left mainstream media is very adept at turning a conservative. We pick conservatives who are unprincipled enough to allow themselves to be turned, who may (or may not) have been true conservatives, but then they allow themselves to fall prey to the sirens call of good media reports, engratiating themselves to those who will write the history boooks, to those who seek to enlarge their images among the movers and shakers of society, to become their darlings....and in the process abrogating their duty to the public and making it evident they have forfeited their self respect and principles. What a legacy. What a crying shame. A planned destruction of this republic, and Roberts was handed to keys to keep faith with the Constitution and the blood and treasure which was given to give us for the price of their lives, fortune, and sacred honor. Where is Roberts honor? Where is his fidelity to that document men fought and died for? I guess we know how Roberts answers Patrick Henrys question....I life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be purchaced at the price of chains and slavery? What is it that they wish? What is it that they have? Forbid it-Almighty God! Well Roberts has answered that question....He sits save and secure in his black dress far from tumult and danger, enjoying the fruits of the labors of others and he offers up a sacrifice of those very providers, their freedoms and the chains of enslavement of those posterity. Liberty or Chains...... Well, Roberts delivers chains for all but the oligarchy. Roberts breaks faith with his own word. I know men who do deals with a handshake. I would not deal with Roberts under any cirucumstance. He hoped for reconstituting the perception of the court in the eye of the public. He had done exactly the opposit. Where will you go to redress your grievances...the court? Heaven forbid. The cout is ruled over by a Kangaroo. This great guiding document had been assaulted and raped by a smiling Jack who slithered his way to the courts’ most esteemed seat. His is relegated to the will of Dante.
I actually thought Harriet Miers would have been better, but people here attacked her and I don’t recall why. It might have been something in her past that triggered the fanatical anti-immigration folks here, who have killled many a good candidate and opened the door to the Obama vote-getting amnesties. But that’s another matter altogether.
After that, Bush picked somebody he knew would be safe...a good manager with solid credentials but at the same time “moderate.”. And moderate is a gateway drug. They always go on to be raving liberals.
That said, I’m not sure Roberts was really being liberal here. Frankly, his whole opinion is so full of contradictions and irrationalities that it’s hard to say what he was being.
Naah. The ones doing the selecting - for the most part - are RINOs.
They KNOW exactly what they are shovelling at us.
Roberts is a shovelful of “compassionate” conservatism.
I guess letting hordes of illegals across our borders or spending millions in American dollars and thousands of American lives trying to bring Democracy to a Mulsim Hellhole like Iraq or Afghanistan, is also.
Muchas Gracias Senior Presidente!! Viva Jorge El Segundo!!
Why do we insist on believing that Republican necessarily equals conservative?
Republican presidents pick justices that reflect their political philosophies.
Roberts’ decision perfectly reflect Bush’s statist phgilosophy.
Because ultimately they are not much different than democrats. That want to expand the power of the federal government and goose step all over the citizens.
Nah. The Justices won’t do that. MAYBE 2 but probably just one. Now so many are so old one may die, but Justices have an unwritten rule they all abide and that is not to mass retire.
Miers had ZERO judicial experience. She was a total unknown.
Bush tried to sell her by saying she was good people, trust me.
Yea, sure George.
Wouldn’t it be great if we had a second party to oppose the Big Government party?
Republicans do not control the process by which Supreme Court Justices are selected.
RINO's control the process.
Until we "fix" that, expect more of the same.
I wonder if Congress can pass funding to say that no more than 2 clerks will come from the same law school.
They're also a majority at the top law schools and in the media, so liberals on the court get a lot of positive reinforcement from other elites.
And liberals like overturning laws they don't approve of. Justices like Rehnquist and Roberts are more conflicted about exercising that power.
BINGO! Not only do we pick academics, we pick people who want to be liked by the bad people, like in high school when we wanted to be part of the clique. Also, on many occasions, when we put up our picks, the Senate is controlled by Democrats, so our limp-wristed Republican presidents put up judges who they think won’t “offend” the Dems and they can have easy confirmation. They remembered what happened with Bork and don’t want a repeat of that.
But when the Pubbies have control of the Senate with a Democratic President, our senators always let them go through without a fight. This is why we have Breyer and Ginsburg.
There aren’t many good ones to be found?
Still beating the Harriet Miers dead horse? Astounding.
“fanatical anti-immigration folks”
Really? So I guess you are soft on immigration?
So indirectly they are co-conspirators - a faction in this corrupt "Two-Party Cartel".
It was Alito not Roberts who was nominated after Miers was pulled. Do you think Miers would have been better than Alito?
And what exactly is "fanatical" when a people, who have been admitting over 1 million legal immigrants a year for decades, and granted 3 million illegals Amnesty 25 years ago, on the condition that the illegal invasion would then be halted - to receive only as "gratitude" unending invasion and demands for more amnesty - have had enough and say so?
But every invasion needs a fifth column to detract from a country's defenders.
It's pretty surprising how many have recently posted something similar to that. But Roberts was Bush's first SC nominee, and Miers was nominated for the second vacancy. Then when the uproar caused Miers to withdraw, Bush nominated Sam Alito who has proven to be a solid conservative, unlike Roberts.
The article is based on a false assumption that GOP Presidents want conservative jurists.
The commie left Dem Presidents want commie leftist Marxist jurists, and they vet them in public and shove them down the throats of the gutless surrendering GOP.
The GOP Presidents are all NWO globalist elitest crooks who want socialist RINO jurists, and that is what they tend to give us. The don’t want conservatives. I was screaming at GW Bush to give us one of the far right jurists and instead he picks people with very little history so you can’t know really how they will vote.
Baby Bush and Daddy Bush did not want conservative jurists. They wanted jurists that would advance the New World Order.
So the author’s premise is false. The GOP Presidents got the globalist jurists they wanted.