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.