Replies

Darth Bader Ginsburg is indeed a kooky liberal and not a "moderate" as the media claims, but I guarantee you Obama will try to find someone so far left to replace her that they make Ginsburg look tame. This is why the election of RINOs like Steve Sauerberg to the U.S. Senate would have been a disaster. Sauerberg made it clear during the campaign that he was willing to confirm an avowedly pro-abortion judge. Such a judge would indeed be to the left of Ginsburg. Our gal Ruth might be a feminazi quack, but she's not crazy enough to shout it from the rooftops during a confirmation hearing.

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.