How important are SCOTUS nominations to the next President?

This is without a doubt the most important point in the upcoming election. I see at least 2 possible new justices in the next 4 years and these folks serve for life. With McCain we MAY see less conservative folks nominated, with Obama we WILL see far left folks nominated.

The court swinging left with a socialist as President and a Democratic congress is my worst nightmare. Given this circumstance, you could forget the checks & balances designed into the system as these folks would hold all the cards - but if you believe their message - they'll do what's right for us.

The only problem is we'll have no say in what that is...
 
If memory serves me correctly Reagan appointed two, Bush 41 one, Clinton 2 and Bush 43 two. If the next pres. hangs around for 8 years it is quite conceivable that they could appoint 2.
 
If the next pres. hangs around for 8 years it is quite conceivable that they could appoint 2.
Click to expand...
Which candidate possibly has a chance for hanging around for 8 years? McCain, Clinton or Obama? I'll never make another guess. I never thought slick willy would make it for 2 terms, and I'm positive there's plenty who never thought Bush 43 would never make it for 2 terms. We'll wait and see.
 
Since presidents and the Congress make a point of hiding behind judges' robes and since Liberals believe in the doctrine of Judicial Supremacy, the
SCOTUS is too often the real ruler -empahasize ruler-of this country. One reason why the Carter Administration has faded from memory is because he
did not get to appoint anyone to the Supreme Court.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Please see PWK's post:
If memory serves me correctly Reagan appointed two, Bush 41 one, Clinton 2 and Bush 43 two. If the next pres. hangs around for 8 years it is quite conceivable that they could appoint 2.
Click to expand...
As the saying goes, "Never say never."

Note also that Dubbya made two replacements because one justice retired, which was expected, and one justice died, which was unexpected.
Which candidate possibly has a chance for hanging around for 8 years? McCain, Clinton or Obama?
Click to expand...
At McCain's age, if he gets elected I would expect him to be a one-termer.
One reason why the Carter Administration has faded from memory is because he did not get to appoint anyone to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
Proof that there is a God.

So all you God-fearing Texas Republicans and Independents out there: Vote for Hillary! Let's bring this trainwreck into the station!
 
Last edited:
Ah, come on Glen, it's no fun talking about politics if you don't make predictions.
Ginsberg (75), may well go. She is in poor health, cancer I believe, and may either retire, if a dem gets elected, or die in office if a repub gets elected.
Stevens (88) can't see him lasting another 8 or even 4 years.
Both Scalia and Kennedy are 72, one may retire in the next 8 years.
Breyer (70) probably will make 4 and most likely 8.
Souter (69) probably will make 4 and most likely 8.
Thomas, Roberts, and Alito are all at or under 60 so barring a major health issue will be around for at least another 8 years.

Appointments:
Ford: Stevens
Reagan: Scalia, Kennedy, O'connor (retired still alive)
Bush 41: Souter, Thomas
Clinton: Ginsberg & Beyer
Bush 43: Alito & Roberts
 
Justice selection is important because congress has abandoned its constitutional ly defined role of check and balance to the courts. Until congress grows a spine the selection of justices both at the supreme level and inferior level will be critical. A number of court initiatives could be limited if congress would identify those pieces of legislation where congress limits the supreme courts appellate jurisdiction. In other words it is perfectly constitutional for congress to say to SCOTUS, "You are not authorized to entertain any appeals to the legislation we just passed. We mean what we just said and you are not authorized to change its meaning." Consult Article III, Section 2. Only rarely does congress impose this provision and in the cases I've seen it is only for selfish and carefully defined political reasons. Evidently even congress finds it helpful to refer to a higher authority when it has to deal with a serious controversy. "Hey, there is nothing we can do about <insert flap of choice> short of rewriting legislation".
 
Too much is made of Supreme Court appointments.

The genius of the founding fathers is apparent with the lifetime appointment of supreme court justices. Why?

If you've got a life term, your loyalty switches from the President who appointed you to Constitution of the people you were appointed to interpret.

Many a President has found himself smacking his forehead and wondering "WTF? Why did I appoint that guy?"

And that is as it should be.

Kowboy
 
Scotus Importance

Scotus Importance

The most important branch of government for defending the Constitution and your rights. No law can be made if contrary to the Constitution as defined by SCOTUS.

Look forward to Supreme Court Justice Reverend Sharpton. Please fight the urge to join the cult.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top