The little of the Democratic National Convention that I've caught so far has been fairly mild. There are compelling reasons -- mostly McCain's failure to get serious about the budget deficit -- for people like me who traditionally vote Republican to think about voting Democratic this year. But the Supreme Court is not one of them, and Senator Clinton's remark that the Court is caught in a "right wing headlock" was ridiculous.
The Court has two solid voting blocs -- Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas on the right and Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter on the left -- with Kennedy often casting the deciding vote with either bloc of 5-4 decisions. I've been shocked at three of the recent opinions of the left-leaning justices: Kelo v. New London on eminent domain, District of Columbia v. Heller on the DC handgun ban, and Kennedy v. Louisiana on the death penalty in child rape cases.
Based on their age and health, I think Stevens and Ginsburg are very likely to retire during the next president's term. I think Obama would be under pressure to nominate justices at least as far to the left as the two who retired, particularly facing a Democratic majority in the Senate. I think I'd be much happier with the justices that would result from nomination by McCain and confirmation by the Democratic Senate.
As I said, there are reasons for Republicans to think about voting for Obama. What would happen to the balance on the Supreme Court is not one of them.
Don't want another Monica Goodling
I think the bigger issue is the abuse of power in judicial branch -- the firing of good US attorneys who were ousted because they didn't toe the administration's line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy
And we were directly affected here in MN when an incompetent and inexperienced political appointment was made -- Rachel Paulose.
I'll be voting for the Democrat because we can't risk more Republican cronyism. It would be bad for America.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/09/24/the-us-attorney-mess-starring-rachel...
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/11/19/rachel-paulose-leaving-minnesota-joi...
You want more Roberts and Alito?
Both Roberts and Alito were nominated by a Republican President, and confirmed by a Democratic Senate. They are firmly on one side of the balance you say you like, by your own words.
Two more such nominations and confirmations will give that faction of the court 6 votes, and the other faction will have only two votes. Kennedy's swing vote would mean nothing. Is that really the court you want?
I don't.
nope, don't want more Roberts or Alitos
Ditto on that. We are losing the 3 legged stool -- the balance of power which makes our government work.
It would be dangerous to elect the Republican at this juncture. Obama is the only real choice to keep us from losing the balance of power which our founding fathers worked so hard to establish.
The judiciary has been manipulated. This past administration has seated neo-con activist judges and federal attorneys. We can't allow it to continue -- I fear the consequences would foment civil unrest. Let's not go there. I like America as it is -- balance is good. We need to stay in balance.
See Bacevich and Moyer interview.
Whaaa? Alito and Roberts are
Whaaa?
Alito and Roberts are not hard right wing? Because that's the kinds of justices that the Democratic Senate will confirm.
I suppose if you really don't want the right to choice constitutionally protected, then McCain-appointed, Dem Senate-approved justices are OK with you.
Defining Deviancy Downward
Sorry. Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer & Souter are not on the left.
Remember that Stevens and Souter were Republican picks. Stevens was a pure merit selection, representing the best that the corporate American bar had to offer in 1975. (I'm not trying to be sarcastic here; he was a great private antitrust lawyer representing defendants.) Breyer is very pro-business and anti-criminal defendant; Ginsburg only a little less so. These four are probably a touch to the right of the Burger court, although your mileage may vary.
Kennedy is far to the right of this group: basically a straight Reagan Republican. Since you can't call SGBS liberals, you can't call him centrist. And Scalithomas-Roberts are way to the right of that. Remember, Scalia and Thomas have been playing with opinions that enshrine Christianity as America's state religion. That's not libertarian right--it is Maistrienne right!
You might disagree with the SGBS interpretation of Kelo, Heller & Kennedy. Is your problem with their policy choices or their legal reasoning? I'm a lawyer, and try to stay out of policy squabbles. But I can assure you: there was plenty of legal leeway in all three cases, as there is in about 80% of cases that the Supreme Court reviews.
Hard to say
So the right wing headlock is that SGBS are too far to the right?
I'm not sure that the difference between the legal reasoning and the policy choices is all that important here, particularly in light of the legal leeway you cite. On these cases, they are voting as blocs. In these cases, one bloc uses legal leeway to achieve outcomes with which I don't agree, and the other bloc uses legal leeway to achieve outcomes with which I do agree. Obama is more likely to replenish the first bloc, and McCain is more likely to expand the second bloc, whatever we call them.
I expect McCain to campaign hard on this issue, using the three cases I mention.
Post new comment