Sometimes the Editorial Board of The NY Times gets it right, even if for the wrong reasons, as in this editorial, The Court and the Next President:
When Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. began the new Supreme Court term by congratulating Antonin Scalia on his 25th anniversary as a justice, it was a reminder that Justice Scalia is now 75 as is Anthony Kennedy and that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 78.
Since 80 is the average retirement age of justices over the past generation, whoever is elected president could shape the court for the next generation….
That’s about as much as The Times’ editors get right, and the rest of the editorial is devoted to bashing Republican candidates and the conservatives on the Court.
But The Times is right about the importance of the 2012 election for the next generation on the Court. Think of the Court without the genius of Antonin Scalia.
As I said in July 2010, If This Doesn’t Motivate You For November, Nothing Will. At that time I was talking about November 2010, and the attempt to regain control of the Senate in anticipation of Ruth Bader Ginsburg retiring, or worse, a conservative Justice retiring in what Jeff Greenfield called The (Possible) Mother of All Battles.
Fortunately, and unexpectedly, Justice Ginsburg is not retiring yet, and barring illness, the Court makeup will remain the same through November 2012. Given the ages of the Justices, the presidential election is the inflection point which will determine the next generation of the Court.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
This is an extremely important consideration in this election and is equally important with respect to creating jobs and fostering a vigorous economy.
The current administration is responsible for appointing two justices that hold views in opposition to free enterprise and the constitution.
Let’s hope that this becomes an issue discussed in future debates. Capitalism is what built this country and it is obvious that the liberals wish to tear it down…
I completely agree, that is why I get very disappointed and even disgusted when I hear comments that if Romney is the nominee, they would stay home. When recovering dems like me, will vote for ABO, and that includes Romney, or any republican at this point.
You got that right!
I’ve got my preferences, but the SCOTUS is too important to consider staying home.
These days during some of my breaks at work, I’ve been sitting down with a couple of hispanic ladies who work in our office building and introducing them to investing. One is a janitor, the other a clerk. They have never before invested!
I tell them my pay for helping them is to spend a fraction of our time together listening to my pitch for becoming a Republican. If I can convert them (and I think I already have) it’s likely their children and grandchildren will become more likely to leave the dark side of politics (the Democratic Party Plantation).
Public schools are doing their best to indoctrinate our kids. Until we can turn that situation around we have to do what we can. I hope I can instill in them some of the passion I feel and that they, in turn, will become missionaries spreading the anti-big government, self-reliance message.
The more Republicans, the smaller chance for liberal activist judges on the SCOTUS. That’s the whole ball game.
LukeHandCool (whose dream for retirement is to spend time working with inner-city kids introducing them to investing. To get everyone to feel they have a stake in America and American business. Then they won’t want to tear the system down).
While it is motivating in the abstract, if Mitt-endz is the GOP nominee how would his nominees be significantly different from Obama’s? A David Souter clone nominated by Mitt-endz vs a
Sotomayor clone nominated by Obama. Same difference. And I don’t even trust Cain to know the names of Justices let alone to be able to grasp the ideology and differences and potential pitfalls in nominees. He has a soundbite that he would nominate Clarence Thomas type nominees, but I doubt he could put that in practice given what appears to be his lack of serious consideration of the major domestic and international issues of the past thirty years.
The more I watch the candidates, the more I think that the top-half candidates (Cain, Gingrich, Perry and Romney) are half “playing dumb” with regard to policy in order to not have to stake out positions. That insulates them somewhat from attacks from the less-likely candidates (Bachmann, Santorum and Paul) until they run out of money (Bachmann & Santorum) or people stop listening to them in any serious fashion (Paul). It also insulates them from some Democrat attacks by giving the Democrat attackers less time to prepare for the General Election.
It’s frustrating for us (engaged Conservatives) to watch, because we want fully-formed, articulate candidates to decide between. As a somewhat inexact analogy, it’s kind of like a game of Texas-Hold’em Poker where nobody has a big chip lead at this point. Everybody is being coy and slowly raising the stakes. They can’t bluff, lest they be called and have to actually show their hand. Nobody can call because again they would have to show their hand. Everybody is waiting for a “tell” from everybody else that they’ve got a weakness, and attempting to exploit it.
By playing it close to the vest and “playing dumb” they’re trying to reduce the time that opponents have to attack them for positions. I would guess that Herman Cain knows a LOT more about the Court system and understands court ideology, domestic and international issues a lot better than he lets on (and has been portrayed in the media). Just like I think that Perry knows a lot more about government functioning and subtle campaigning than his recent “blunders” would suggest, and Romney knows a lot more about local issues and farming than his approach would suggest up to this point.
The only people who I think has ALL their cards on the table right now are Gingrich, Bachmann and Santorum and Paul, only because they really have nothing to lose by doing so.
– Gingrich because he’s been such a public figure for so long, he’s already weathered most of the internal and outside attacks.
– Bachmann because she’s trying to corral the TEA Partier support under her to consolidate her Congressional position. As I’ve said previously, I think now she’s running less for President and more for Speaker of the House.
– Santorum because he’s actually a true-believer (not in a religious sense) in what he’s talking about, but knows he can’t win and thus wants to push the debate for as long as he can afford to stay in; and
– Paul also because he’s a true-believer in what he’s talking about but too overly blunt to try to finesse it, may or may not understand he can’t actually win, but but does understand that he can influence the debate and the outcome simply by being there to the finish line. Also, I think that Paul is actively trying to reinvigorate the Libertarian wing of the party (whether he’s going about it the right way is a different debatable issue).
Democrat presidents do not nominate swing votes to the Supreme Court.
You are correct. They nominate Leftist Statists who will try to “reinterpret” the Constitution in light of “today’s values” to accomplish what is clearly against the will of the People of the United States.
and think about what will happen if Romney’s there.
If Obama’s wins, I’m moving to Canadia.(joke)
They’re going to repeal their long gun registration and they’ve done fairly well in balancing socialist bs with market forces and the frozen north is looking mighty comfy compared to the liberalized and expensive energy chill in the US. Plus they have the sense to utilize their resources.
You americans are hosers, ey?
the difference between who Mittens would nominate versus the SCOAMF picking another raving moonbat is so trivial as to be hardly worth getting excited about.
in fact, since i live in the People’s Republic of California, if the GOP nominates their preferred RINO or Newt the fallback Beltway RINO, i won’t bother doing anything other than going down on election day and voting for the local lost causes here.
the nomination of either of those two idiots will be final proof that the GOP “leadership” would rather maintain their personal perks as a minority party than engage in an active debate over what is good for this country and her citizens.
Mittens has publicly stated that one of the reasons we should all be thrilled to rush down and vote for him is that he canw*rk with Democraps… ala McLame “reaching across the aisle”.
the problem is, we don’t want or need someone “reaching across the aisle to the lieberals, unless they are swinging a clue by four and knocking some sense into their collective noggins.
more of the same is not what we want or need and i, for one, will not aid and abet such stupidity.
I’ll second that emotion.
Telling me that Romney would be a better choice doesn’t fly. There is something worse than a Dem packing the court with screaming liberals. It’s a RINO packing the court with screaming liberals.
Regarding life terms for SCOTUs.
This is giving individuals too much power. I don’t even have to go into health & mental agility issues that creep up in old age.
Our limit is 75 years. Many are retiring earlier to live pleasanter less shackled lives. Some have become Roving Minstrels of Law & are a better influence on public opinion than the media.
At least they know something.
I used to cycle past The High Court most days & can verify that it is a buzz on the Weekends . It has world class long curved bannistesr rails that are perfect for skateboarding .
[…] Obama to circumvent the Constitution, and Obama is quite willing to do so. Then go to this post on Legal Insurrection: Sometimes the Editorial Board of The NY Times gets it right, even if for the wrong reasons, as in […]