search
top

Packing the Court

Kevin doesn’t trust McCain to pick the right kind of justices. I don’t really either. But you know what? I didn’t trust Bush to make good selections either, and, Harriet Meyers debacle aside, we wouldn’t be thinking about winning Heller if Al Gore or John Kerry had won. Bush could have done better, but Roberts and Alito are far from the worst choices that could have been made.

I know exactly the kind of justices that Hillary and Obama will pack the court with. How does the thought of Obillery picking Scalia’s replacement sit with you? It doesn’t sit well with me either, but Scalia will be 81 by the time the next president leaves office. Think he’ll make it? If either of those two win, I certainly hope so.

For whatever reason, conservatives didn’t have their act together this primary, and so we’re stuck with the second string. Perhaps folks will say I’ve drank the kool-aid, but can you imagine the damage that up to six Obillery nominated justices will do as we try to refine the scope of the second amendment post Heller? Make no mistake about it, I think that McCain’s choices are likely to be less than stellar, but I see no reason to slit our wrists electorally and let Obillery seriously alter the ideological composition of The Court.

One thing to consider is that while we might not get exactly what we want as president, McCain can’t be guaranteed to get exactly who he wants as Supreme Court justice. Justice Kennedy and Souter are prime examples of that. Also note that our most conservative justice, with the greatest fealty toward the constitution, Justice Thomas, was nominated by the decidedly unconservative George H.W. Bush.  With McCain, we run a much better chance of getting a more favorable justice than we do with either of the Democrats.

10 Responses to “Packing the Court”

  1. Ian Argent says:

    Harriet Meyers part 2 beats the hell out of Supreme Court Justice William Jefferson Clinton. Plus if they take another page out of FDRs playbook and just nominate 2 more…

  2. illspirit says:

    I dunno. McCain is probably more likely to nominate a bunch of Souter-esque jurists that he feels would approve of his incumbent protection or amnesty laws. Well, that, or, just to be a bipartisan “maverick” of whatever.

    And Congressional Republicans will rubber stamp them out of blind, party loyalty while the Democrats sit back and laugh.

    Should Hillobama win, Republicans will likely take back the Senate in 2010, after which they would fight any Democratic nomination tooth and nail. Before 2010, the most the Dem’s would probably pick up would be replacements for Stevens, Ginsberg, and maybe Souter.

    Either way, the lesser of two evils is still evil..

  3. Sebastian says:

    Should Hillobama win, Republicans will likely take back the Senate in 2010, after which they would fight any Democratic nomination tooth and nail. Before 2010, the most the Dem’s would probably pick up would be replacements for Stevens, Ginsberg, and maybe Souter.

    You sure about this? And do you remember what the Democrats had to do to us to get 1994? Think the assault weapons ban will have a sunset clause this time? I’m not betting on Republicans getting their act together in 2010.

    I don’t disagree that McCain very well may end up picking moderates that don’t please us, but we might luck out and get a Thomas. I can promise you we’ll get very left wing justices with Hillary or Obama, and even if there is a Republican senate, in 2010, there’s still two years, and I think you can expect near immediate retirement of Stevens and Ginsburg after the next election.

    The lesser of two evils may still be evil, but I don’t see any reason to open the vein wider. Maybe someone will save us before we bleed to death.

  4. straightarrow says:

    There just isn’t any way to do the right thing as a voter this election.

    If SC nominations are to be the star we steer by, then Ron Paul is the candidate we must vote for.

    Yeah, I know. Don’t bother.

  5. dwlawson says:

    How will a Dem ‘pack’ the court? The likely retirees are already liberal. Sure we lose the chance to totally own the court, but we don’t risk losing it.

  6. illspirit says:

    No, I’m not sure about 2010. I’m not even sure what’s going on this year..

    If Heller goes our way, even Hillary might be scared to touch a new AWB. If SCOTUS rules against us, who’s to say McCain won’t sign a new AWB with the Second Amendment “out of the way?” Or, for that matter, he already seems to think the First Amendment (with mountains of precedent behind it) is little more than a suggestion, so he might very well sign it anyway. Be it to pay back his friends at Americans for “Gun Safety,” or if the grabbers stick something about terrorism in the name of the bill.

    One thing I am almost certain of is that if we keep groveling before the RNC and accepting whatever sub-par candidates they throw at us, they will never get their act together. What incentive do they have to give us real conservatives if we keep settling for less in the name of “electability” or what have you?

    As for opening a vein, well, I’m almost to the point where I’d prefer one gaping wound to a thousand more paper cuts. At least then we’d know where to apply pressure to stop the bleeding, rather than having tens of thousands of tiny cuts and no way to patch them all.

    Or, to use ye olde “boiling frog” metaphor, if they heat the water fast enough, maybe we’ll jump out of the pot instead of slowly cooking to death.

  7. Sebastian says:

    One thing I am almost certain of is that if we keep groveling before the RNC and accepting whatever sub-par candidates they throw at us, they will never get their act together. What incentive do they have to give us real conservatives if we keep settling for less in the name of “electability” or what have you?

    The RNC is not a company providing a product. They don’t honestly care if you don’t like the candidates they put up if they can find a coalition to make him win. All we do by sitting outside the process and treating it like we’re buying a product is guaranteeing pro-freedom candidates don’t get fronted.

    We fucked up this time. We put all our eggs in the Fred Thompson basket, and it backfired. All I’m arguing is that McCain will hold the line better than Hillary, and perhaps in 2012 or 2016, we’ll be able to do better.

  8. illspirit says:

    They don’t honestly care if you don’t like the candidates they put up if they can find a coalition to make him win.

    Sure, but if we keep compromising to join in said winning coalition, they will continue to take us for granted. ;)

    But, yea, maybe McCain won’t be entirely bad. He might still be able to convince me to vote for him for other reasons. I still wouldn’t get my hopes up that he would appoint good Justices or fight bad gun law though.

    Either way, it will take a lot of convincing to get me to actively campaign for and/or defend him..

  9. Sebastian says:

    Yeah, I understand. I don’t really like him either. Hillary or Obama might very well win, and I will argue the Republicans deserved to lose. But I don’t think it’ll teach them anything.

  10. Ian Argent says:

    Packing the court – there is nothing sacred about the current # of justices on the court. Historically there have been both more and less. FDR threatened to seat, what, 4 more justices? He didn’t, but the threat of doing so was enough to change the attitude of the court.

    As for the lesser of evils, sitting out/voting 3rd party got us Clinton in 1992 and still didn’t get us a conservative in 2000 after 8 years of clinton. what makes you think it will work now? I would rather have the lesser evil than another 8 years of a Clinton White House, especially when at least 2-4 of those years will be with a Democratic Congress.

    the republican parth fucked up by the numbers since 2004. But fairly obviously, republicans don’t care. We can either sit this one out and guarantee a D victory a la 1992/1996 or vote for the republican candidate and stem the bleeding.

top