Saturday, May 02, 2009
So why doesn't this work in reverse?
Liberal Supreme Court justice David Souter is retiring and returning home to New Hampshire because unlike Arlen Specter he has a life. Now consider some of the Supremes nominated by conservative presidents over the years who for some strange reason later evolved into liberals: Nixon got Harry Blackmun on the court and we all know what he did, Reagan gave us Sandra Day O'Connor and Bush the Sr. gave us Souter who usually voted with the liberal wing. So what Z is asking today is how come a liberal president never nominates someone to the court who later turns out to be a staunch conservative and a real pain in the ass to people with a liberal agenda? I'd bet dollars to doughnuts Obama is not gonna put up someone who later is going to "accidentally" overturn Roe vs. Wade so is it because the liberal vetting process is better? do conservative judges leave more of a paper trail? are they more vocal in their views? or does just saying Judge Q or W is good because he only interprets the Constitution and nothing more really mean anything these days? geez EVERY potential Supreme Court nominee is gonna say that. I'm in a wondering kind of mood today.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blame it on Murphy's law.
ReplyDeleteI think Murphy was a lib.
Murphy?
ReplyDeleteI think he was eponymous..
...and Irish. :)
I had a rather dark and cynical thought last night in considering the question of my own blog. Maybe it all does make sense, maybe Reagan wasn't really pro-life after all but just wanted those votes and that's how we wound up with Sandra Day O'Connor. We've had our share of conservative or quasi-conservative presidents over the years and Roe is still the law of the land so actually my theory is really the only one left that makes sense. Now let me get to that booze blog as my time was limited yesterday.
ReplyDeleteActually not such a far fetched theory.
ReplyDeletePresidents don't always get what they want in their Supreme Court appointments. Assuming we had a solid conservative sitting in the White House at present, his appointment still pretty much as to go through Conyers and Leahy so it'd be a hard sell.
ReplyDeleteBush got Roberts through without much trouble.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm talking about the Bigger Picture, when push comes to shove Roe is never really in danger despite even liberal pundits like Jeffrey Toobin saying it's over. I like Roberts btw.
ReplyDeleteIf Roe v Wade is overturned, you two do realize the issue is merely returned to the states (where it rightfully ought to be). This is not to say that abortion wouldn't still occur. But at the very least, for those who hold it in high political regard, they could move to another state where the practice is not permitted. And that's what Federalism is all about.
ReplyDeleteI'm more than well aware of that and that's our common ground my friend. In fact if Giuliani had simply changed his tune early enough and started talking federalism as applied to abortion I think he would have garnered many social conservative votes in the primaries but he said dickheaded things like if Roe is overturned or not doesn't matter to me either way. Imagine if he did this and wound up on top over McCain instead he's kind of fading into the woodwork like our old friend Newt.
ReplyDeleteIf Roe v Wade is overturned, you two do realize the issue is merely returned to the statesWhich is precisely why I would like a Constitutional amendment to define life so that Roe would be a mute point.
ReplyDelete"Which is precisely why I would like a Constitutional amendment to define life so that Roe would be a mute point."You and certainly a great many others. I am not one of them. While an amendment is obviously the proper means to codify it, there is a very good reason why the Constitution remains silent on the issue of abortion. And, it is for this reason that the Constitution ought not be "tinkered" with. Because, in so doing, you bear culpability in subjective interpretation of the Constitution. So, do not be surprised when another political party employs the same subjective interpretation in the pursuit of Constitutionaly codifying something of their own choosing which is antithetical to your own beliefs.
ReplyDeleteGetting back to Bush getting Roberts through so maybe Bush despite all his faults was really the only sincerely pro-life Republican president there ever was. I remember reading a quote from Sandra Day O'Connor, the Reagan appointee, who said "Roe vs. Wade is on a collision course with itself and medical reality" then apparently she had a change of heart. Sure you can appoint a Bork or try to at least but it seems like the tipping point for Roe never comes, the key justice will always be in a pro-Roe mood. The question before the board today is can a liberal like Obama appoint an O'Connor type but in reverse, talk about the importance of precedence or stare decisis now but help to overturn Roe in the future? My point, liberal presidents unlike conservative ones seem to have ways of never letting this happen, call it liberal radar, another thing wrong with our party on an ever-growing list.
ReplyDelete