At Commentary’s Contentions blog, Jennifer Rubin writes:
It’s official: Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens will retire this summer. It is neither unexpected, given his recent interviews, nor hugely significant. He will be replaced by a justice equally enamored of the “living Constitution” and equally dismissive of the notion that the judge’s job is to divine the meaning of the texts before him or her. It does, however, add to the Democrats’ woes. It is another subject area — judicial activism and the resulting impact on abortion, gay rights, and other policies — on which the Left is at odds with the American people. Democrats rarely benefit from these debates. And, in this case, it may impair their moving ahead on more politically attractive measures that might be of some benefit. Should we expect a filibuster? Another Sonia Sotomayor might trigger one, but I suspect the White House will tamp down on the controversial, nix the “empathy” jabber, and find a qualified nominee this time around. It is, more than anything else, a lost opportunity for conservatives — who after losing the 2008 race now pay the price in court appointments at all levels of the judiciary.
Indeed.™
Meanwhile, everyone’s favorite pro-“life” Congressman is, according to CNN’s sources, “unexpectedly” planning to spend more time with his family next year. Will there be more? Laura Ingraham has your hot (but don’t get your hopes up just yet) rumor of the day.
And speaking of someone who will also hopefully soon be spending more time with his family — and ideally, his therapist as well — why won’t Alan Grayson (D-FL) let his constituents just eat their waffles in peace?
Join the conversation as a VIP Member