How important are SCOTUS nominations to the next President?

A

azredhawk44

Moderator
The four longest serving members of the Supreme Court are Stephens, Scalia, Kennedy and Souter.

Scalia is one of "ours," but the other three are pretty much "theirs." Assuming that a president replaces 1-2 justices per term and that justices tend to retire with the team that brought them to the dance (meaning libs leave under a Dem president and conservatives leave under a Repub president), Scalia isn't likely to retire if he's in good health... which he is.

We don't stand to lose much, if any, ground in the SCOTUS if HilBama wins. We also won't win much if McCain wins, because he WILL capitulate to a liberal Senate for appointments and feed the agenda of Kennedy and his ilk.

So, REALLY how important are SCOTUS appointments when faced with the cold reality of those most likely to leave and the types of appointments likely to be put forward by HilBama or McCain?
 
We also won't win much if McCain wins, because he WILL capitulate to a liberal Senate for appointments and feed the agenda of Kennedy and his ilk.
Click to expand...

What makes you say that

WildcuriousAlaska ™
 
They're always important

I've learned that I'm bad at predicting what might come of Republican nominations, though Dem ones are pretty predictable.

I figured Reagan would make bad appointments, but they were pretty good.

I figured George HW Bush would make pretty good appointments. Well, he appointed Thomas, who is by far my favorite, but somehow I'm not really sure he meant to do it. Maybe that Souter appointment.

I figured George W Bush would make moderate, mainstream, or crony appointments. I was sort of right on the last one, with Harriet's failed nomination. Other than that, my initial impression of Roberts and Alito is that both are far better than I would have expected.

I figure McCain will make appointments with his signature legislation firmly in mind. Read the confusing array of opinions, partial concurrences, and dissents in the MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N case.

It takes a while to figure out who favors or opposes what, but as you read it becomes clear that certain Justices think McCain Feingold is just flat unconstitutional. Those are the kind he won't want to appoint. He'll look for a Souter.

Or I could be wrong. Again.
 
During the next Presidency, at least two SCOTUS nomination will take place. If Hillary or Obama win the Election, they will nominate LIBERAL Judges.
That should answer your question about how important it will be.

Martyn
 
I don't know if anyone is sure. Remember Supreme Court Justices have this nasty habit of doing there on thing when they end up on the Court. FDR tried to throw a temper tantrum when they wouldn't give him his way.
 
Threatening to stack the Court goes beyond a mere temper tantrum. And, FDR got his way. The Court ruled in his favor more times than not... To the lasting detriment of our Constitution.
 
Although the major candidates are saying little about SCOTUS it is highly important to consider this issue. Although I am no McC supporter I may vote for him in the end just because of this issue his past despicable behavior not withstanding.
 
I think it much bigger a consideration than the presidency itself. Worse case scenario we get 4 years of the president and can even get rid of him if there's enough support to do so. The Supremes are lifelong appointments (bad idea) and there's no question a liberal judge or two, maybe three, will be the result of a Democrat victory in the White House.
That will effect us for at least a generation. It's the only thing that really worries me this time around.
 
We don't stand to lose much, if any, ground in the SCOTUS if HilBama wins. We also won't win much if McCain wins, because he WILL capitulate to a liberal Senate for appointments and feed the agenda of Kennedy and his ilk.
Click to expand...

Hogwash. McCain will appoint conservative justices, Hillbama will appoint liberal justices.

And Kennedy is a good, conservative justice. Especially if you like the first amendment.

Look, if you like Hillbama, vote for Hillbama. But don't try and pretend that there is no difference between McCain and Hillbama, because there is a tremendous difference, including regarding their choices for justices.
 
So, REALLY how important are SCOTUS appointments when faced with the cold reality of those most likely to leave and the types of appointments likely to be put forward by HilBama or McCain?
Click to expand...
You've hit it pretty well. Ginsburg and Souter appointments will be our expected justices no matter who wins between the two you've mentioned.

All to enhance the power of the federal government.
 
Hogwash. McCain will appoint conservative justices, Hillbama will appoint liberal justices.

And Kennedy is a good, conservative justice. Especially if you like the first amendment.

Look, if you like Hillbama, vote for Hillbama. But don't try and pretend that there is no difference between McCain and Hillbama, because there is a tremendous difference, including regarding their choices for justices.
Click to expand...

McCain is on record as saying that Alito is too conservative.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013003212_pf.html

Many people suspect that McCain will use McCain-Feingold as a quiet, behind-the-scenes litmus test for any nominees before they make it to the Senate for approval.
http://volokh.com/posts/1201840227.shtml
http://www.nowpublic.com/nominating-mccain-gop-desperate

Considering that McCain-Feingold is McCain's only real legislative "accomplishment", it would be very detrimental to his legacy (God, I hate that term) if a law with his name on it got overturned during his tenure as President.

Also, considering that his Amnesty program got absolutely trounced and tanked (many thanks to the thousands and thousands of Americans who flooded the phone banks of the Capitol), he's going to want to work with his buddy Teddy to pass one while working from his own angle at the President's pulpit. I'd bet dollars to donuts that the Amnesty issue will be his second term "legacy" agenda where it won't hurt him in the polls for re-election. He'll want justices that support Amnesty by perverse reading of the Constitution just like McCain-Feingold.

We'll get Souters and Ginsbergs out of McCain, not Roberts or Alitos. We'll also get Souters and Ginsbergs out of HilBama.

At this point, I'm not voting for McCain or HilBama. I'll vote conservative at the local level and leave the big slot blank on my ballot, or write in somebody.

The big "talking points" issue I see going on in political forums and talk radio is the SCOTUS appointments. I think it's a straw man argument, though. We won't get fierce conservatives out of McCain for the Court. And the ones most likely to leave anytime soon are Democratic Justices, not Conservatives.

I think it helps our party more to drop support for McCain and send a clear message to the GOP that we don't buy into the platform they're pitching, and come back strong in 2010 or 2012, than to put a milkwater moderate who capitulates to socialists into power.
 
McCain probably wouldn't nominate people I would pick, but he would definitely pick someone to the right of where Obama would go. Comments by BHO's former students, and his stint on the Harvard Law Review, indicate that he embraces "Constitutional Relativity". He would start with Ginsberg and turn left from there.

Wheredoyouwanttogotoday?
(Can I do that?)
 
any president will follow party

I think the only safe thing to predict is that any president will tend to follow party lines. Obma would probably appoint more liberal judges while McCain would probably appoint more conservative judges. The trend has been there a long time and the next president is not going to do anything out of the ordinary.

Martyn4802 your concerned the next appointment might be liberal. I'm just as affraid the might be ultra conservatives.
 
I guess my point is:

If we had a couple of aging Conservative Justices that were really pushing their ability to serve on the bench and we would lose 2 strong conservative voices, mitigating that by getting McCain in as POTUS would end up with us trading 2 strong conservatives for 2 weak conservatives or closet libs.

But, with 2 weak conservatives or closet libs on their way out in this term, we'd get the same type of replacement from a HilBama or McCain presidency. The "Judicial Activism" card is alive and strong for grassroots conservatives to use in phone calls and letter campaigns, so we can stop rabid libs from getting appointed even under a HilBama and a left Senate.

I don't see anything to gain by a McCain presidency... he's out-and-out said that Alito is too conservative. He'll absolutely be appointing left of Alito.
 
I'd like to see something more substantive than un-named sources recalling what they think they remember about what McCain said about Alito.
 
If we had a couple of aging Conservative Justices that were really pushing their ability to serve on the bench and we would lose 2 strong conservative voices, mitigating that by getting McCain in as POTUS would end up with us trading 2 strong conservatives for 2 weak conservatives or closet libs.
Click to expand...
Age isn't the only way to lose justices. They are just as vulnerable to the other hazards of life as anyone else. Car accidents, unexpected strokes, diseases, nut cases. Wasn't Souter attacked in a park back in 2005 or 2006? Wasn't there a federal judge recently murdered by some whackjob?

Given the variables involved and their unpredictability, I'm never comfortable with assuming any Supreme Court justice will be around as long as expected.
 
Given the variables involved and their unpredictability, I'm never comfortable with assuming any Supreme Court justice will be around as long as expected.
Click to expand...

That's true, but every election I seem to hear that the next President will appoint at least a few SC Justices. It never seems to happen that way. They seem to average about 1 SC appointment per term of office.
 
Nothing is more important to our political liberty than getting the right Justices on SCOTUS. With the coming Dem majorities SCOTUS will be the only thing between us and tyrannical suppression of our individual rights. We will then have a choice between "going quietly" and disregarding the rule of law. Both of those choices are invidious.

With McCain there is at least the possibility of offering judicial nominees that can block the worst impulses of a Dem Congress. Whether such nominees would make it through the confirmation gauntlet is, of course, another matter entirely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top