Potential Supreme Court Justices need to be a voter issue

This is actually my #1 issue when it comes to the Presidential candidate. Presidents talk about creating "legacies" all the time, but this is the one thing where the legacy is an actual reality. The last thing we need is another Scalia on the Supreme Court, and you can bet the Republicans will appoint the youngest qualified candidates possible. That could mean 30-35 years of hardcore conservative rulings.

On the other hand, a conservative/liberal president doesn't always mean a conservative/liberal Justice. And sometimes the liberal justices can really screw up (see Kelo vs. New London). But still, I would trust the appointments of Obama way more than I would trust the appointments of McCain. And if McCain kicked it, I wouldn't trust the appointments of Palin at all.

 

This is something I actually think about often, but I didn't realize just how relevant it is to this election.

Of course, it terrifies me as a woman. The thought of Roe v. Wade being overturned makes my stomach turn. Abortion is not something I would ever seek myself, but I do believe the option should be available. There would undoubtedly be a public health crisis if that were to happen. If a woman really wants an abortion, she will seek any means to have one.

 

It's not just Roe v. Wade that will fall.

Roe v. Wade comes from Griswold vs. Connecticut (a case that basically established a constitutional right to privacy in the context of state regulation of contraceptives used by married couples).

To knock down Roe is to knock down Griswold, the argument from the right is that Griswold went too far, not original intent blah blah bs - which means a whole class of personal freedoms goes out the window.

How anybody who calls themself a libertarian can stomach this beyond me.

 

Exactly. As if the Patriot Act hasn't diminished privacy enough.

 

Only in America does the right to privacy give you the right to kill your own child but not prevent the government from reading your email.

 

I don't like the supreme court. Lifetime appointment seem un-American. I would prefer if 70 year people were not ruling on issues like the internet which they may not even use or really know about.

 

I agree with you. And, I don't like the effect it has on the appointment process. I'm okay with them being appointed, but kick them off after a certain amount of time.

 

That is the point of individual rights versus the government. The government has is supposed to be more restricted in what it does to individuals than what individuals do themselves.

 

Which is why it's enshrined in the Constitution and people like Madison and Hamilton and Adams and Jefferson and Washington all supported it.

That's from federalist #78, written by Hamilton.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_78.html

Go read the whole thing, for it is essentially a defense of lifetime appointments.

And here's Jefferson...

 

I understand, but the lifetime appointment is supposed to, and generally does, ensure that Justices are apolitical. Having them elected would certainly kill that protection, and any appointment shorter than political trends would as well. I don't see much difference between 20-year appointments and lifetime appointments.

 

Anyone here read The Nine by Jeff Toobin? It is amazing, about the Renquist / O Connor years. I agree, I can not believe people are missing the Supreme Court here. Roe V. Wade, the whole freaking concept of stare decisis, the Scalia mold of being an originalist... it's fascinating. It's also scary as crap. Renquists seat falling to Roberts is not that seismic a shift, other than the fact that roberts will last forever. But the moderate (and public sentiment-conscious) o'connor going to Alito is the last breathing room before that court goes seriously conservative - overturning decades and decades of decisions. Miranda rights? Roe? the whole show is at risk....

 

As anyone who's read some of my posts about this election (and the last couple of elections, especially '04) has seen, I have said time and time again that this is the single most important thing people should consider when voting for President. The number who ignore that fact simply astounds me.

 

Those nine people have such immense power, it is truly amazing. The role Sandra Day O'Connor played in the 2000 election is astonishing, as was the courts salivating over Florida. The key advisor in that case? you guessed it, John Roberts. That institution is so small and powerful, it is mindblowing.

 

You'd probably also like "Supreme Conflict," by Jan Greenburg. I'm currently writing a book on the rhetoric of judicial politics, largely the Federalist Society, and the likelihood that ideologues like Scalia and Thomas winning approval in the future is very low. McCain has cited Roberts and Alito as his ideal candidates, rather than the old originalist soldiers. However, there's actually a great deal of danger to the "Burkean minimalism" that Roberts and Alito practice. Rather than overturning decisions, they'll simply 'hollow them out' through a series of very narrow decisions.

There's a theory among many liberal law scholars, e.g. Cass Sunstein, that the Republicans never would actually overturn Roe, as the overwhelming support of it would likely create a seismic shift in the electoral landscape. When abortion becomes a largely legislative issue, then a lot of moderate Republicans would likely switch to the Democrats.

 

I am a total beginner to this subject, but I find this all fascinating. Totally makes sense about roe, just chipping away...

 

Good stuff. You should post here more often!

 

Good point. Yesterday my gf asked why I'm voting for whom I'm voting for. This was one of my main points.

 

Thanks Deck, seeing as I seem to be pulling ahead in the "I'll take the bet thread," I think that's a distinct possibility... Anyone who's interested in a liberal discussion of the conservative backlash to Roe v. Wade might want to watch the ACS panel discussion on it: http://www.acslaw.org/node/5187

 

dude you don't give a crap about personal freedoms.