Changing the Dynamics of Making Judicial Appointments
What should alarm us most is not the perception of partisan slant in these choices, but the fact that they never fail to surprise us. Knowing we can reliably list John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito as our “conservative judges” with John Stevens, David Souter, Stephen Breyer, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the “liberals” is the most compelling evidence that this apple is rotting at its core. Our ability to consistently predict how each will vote on any given subject has left Anthony Kennedy in the position of effectively acting as a one man arbiter of what shall or shall not pass constitutional muster.
Rather than calling for more appointments that appeal to our personal, partisan interests, we should instead be encouraging the selection of new candidates that will occasionally surprise or dismay us, but always reassure us of their competency through strong, well researched, rational opinions on each ruling.
Without wishing ill on anyone, it should come as no surprise if President Obama winds up filling multiple seats on the Supreme Court bench. The most commonly mentioned name is, of course, that of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Having just celebrated her 76th birthday last week, Justice Ginsburg recently underwent cancer surgery and is now embarking on a regimen of chemotherapy treatments. Conservatives may not feel inclined to balk much if Obama replaces her, though, no matter whom he selects.
Ginsburg has long been recognized as the “liberal lioness” of the court, and even if the president tapped someone who ruled in favor of issuing condoms to gay hamsters in Catholic schools across the nation, the makeup of the court would remain relatively intact.
A similar sentiment could hold sway if Stevens or Breyer –at ages 88 and 70 respectively — choose to step down. But what if Antonin Scalia, himself in his seventies, decided to retire or suffered a severe medical mishap? Even Chief Justice Roberts, seemingly youthful and hearty at 54, gave everyone a scare in 2007 when he had a second benign idiopathic seizure and fell from a dock at his vacation home.
Should Barack Obama be called upon to fill one of those positions, a battle royale will be in the offing and the country will once again be bloodied and bruised.
I would encourage our new president to abandon the pre-approved candidate lists of traditional party screeners and chart a new course in keeping with his campaign promises of a post-partisan nation. There are justices out there who will have doubtless enraged politicos on both sides of the aisle at times but received consistent approbation from their peers for their well reasoned, thoroughly documented, and concisely written opinions. The problem is you won’t find their names by consulting the RNC or the DNC. We deserve better than we’ve been getting and only the president is in a position to raise the bar.
If Barack Obama truly wishes to write his legacy large on the pages of history, this is one area where he could do so without being fettered by the likes of the House and Senate majority leaders. He owes us that much, and he should step up to this awesome responsibility and deliver, for the benefit of the nation he seeks to serve.
“President Obama should appoint truly independent-minded judges – not reliable ideological jurists.”
The Left will NEVER let that happen. Please..nice pipe dream.
I don’t want an “independent-minded judge” if that means someone who finds “penumbras” and “emanations” where they don’t exist.
I want someone who has a judicial philosopy that doesn’t create new law out of thin air but returns the onus to the legislative branch where it rightfully belongs.
“President Obama should appoint truly independent-minded judges – not reliable ideological jurists”
Did you really write that? Are you kidding? Don’t you know anything about these people?
The only major problem the Messiah is going to have filling these seats is finding enough tax-cheats. In the case of appointing judges, I’m sure he’s going to run out of available ACLU attorneys.
I doubt if The Vapid One knows enough about our Constitution to nominate someone who knows anything about our Constitution.
In a perfect world, any nominee who thinks international law has a place in America would be disqualified. Activist judges have no purpose in our legal system other than to promote a socialist agenda, and are themselves un-American.
I remember having a conversation about this subject with Jazz Shaw on his radio show on February 29, 2008 on Blog Talk Radio. He had decided to support the Democratic candidate Barack Obama, and I called to ask him why. He answered that he thought federal spending was out of control, he was against the war in Iraq and wanted to change the judicial direction we were going in. Were we going in too much of a conservative direction? No, he said, he just wanted a change. That’s a good example of how much thought he puts into things some times. But he’ll tell you he ended up voting for the Libertarian. We’ll have to take the word of a moderate on that.
I mention that because I can understand wanting change, but it’s tough to respect Shaw’s clarion call for “independent” judges when he has little idea what he means by that. All nominations at federal level positions will naturally reflect the ideology of the president – it’s a recognition that not only do judges hold great power to change society (they’ve assumed this role), but the president’s supporters demand that their vision be reflected on the bench. Furthermore, there likely isn’t a more ideological person in any administration than the president – it’s the reason they run for the position of most powerful person in the world. You don’t work that hard to make it into the Oval Office so you can field moderates to the bench. Barack believes he’s strengthening the country he loves by nominating ACLU attorneys to the federal bench.
Don’t underestimate him (folks like BackwardsBoy). Barack Obama is well versed in the law and the Constitution – he’s a highly educated man who is deeply ideological, who earned his political stripes battling in the dog eat dog world of Chicago politics. He’s never shown the willingness to compromise with his political adversaries, and assumes an air of entitlement now that will either propel him or destroy him. Only the hopelessly idealistic would expect he would now recognize a responsibility to nominate “independent” judges. We call the “hopelessly idealistic” Obama followers.
Political moderates like Jazz serve a purpose, but too often folks like him think moderation means the absence of partisanship. They’ll argue that partisanship happens when people stuck in ideological boxes labeled “conservative” or “liberal” won’t give up thoughtless positions and give in to pragmatism. Moderates believe they’re above the fray by virtue of their political magnanimity. But that’s a ruse. Shaw’s broadsides against Sarah Palin or Joe the Plumber show he’s eager to spit political poison when personal assaults are good for marketing his name, but he wags the finger when political poisons are sprayed in debates on issues beyond personality – like war, taxes or judicial nominees.
We can’t wish away our disagreements, and there’s no virtue in passivity when America faces the challenges it does. Freedom is worth fighting for. Barack Obama is worth fighting against.
Puleeze! Il Duce won’t be appointing anyone that doesn’t toe his line. What he should do? C’Mon! What he SHOULD do is produce his Birth Certificate!!
OK, so NOW you want independent judges. Don’t hold your breath. It’s the judicial version of bi-partisanship – ignore it when yo have power, whine about it when you don’t. Very simple. Appreciate the thought, really, but you should move on to something that has at least a modicum of possibility. I suggest you support haley Barbour’s latest leadership coup – making it illegal to sell babies in Mississippi (and this time they mean it).
Obama is and always has been owned by a group of pimps whose objective was and is to destroy the middle class in America. To ensure that the middle class never recovers here, Obama will appoint left wing radicals who will make Ginsburg look like a moderate!
8. TexEd: . . . Wrong, Tex. The only problem the USA has is Texas. We should have left it in the hands of Mexico instead of stealing it from them. We’d be far better off. Instead, we’ve two hundred years of ignorance masquerading as a pioneer spirit. All you’ve ever contributed is dry wells, pervert preachers and botox bimbos. Do us all a favor and recede already. Please.
7. One of my own, actually, the idea Bush had, as much as I hate the guy even I have to admit that he was appointing strict constructionists. You know, the kind that do not bring a personal agenda? Who, pray tell, would you call an idealog amoung Bush’s appointees and what is your evidence?
I can name an idealog: Justice Ginsberg, former counselor for the American Civil Liberties Union. She’s tried to re-write the constitution with each opinion she’s written. None of the conservatives have. Not Thomas, not Scalia, not Alito and not Roberts!
You can screech all you want to, but you can’t change the facts.
Greetings all members,
I would just like to say hello and let you know that I’m happy to be a member – been a lurker long enough
Hope to contribute some and gain some knowledge along the way….