One of the biggest dangers over the next 4 years of Obama's reign is what might happen to the Supreme Court. Obama and his followers are salivating for the day when they can add another far left liberal to the bench.
The court is now evenly split between conservative and liberal. 4 hard core liberals, 3 consistent conservatives, a middle of the road waffler, and a Chief Justice who seems willing to put his own reputation in the media above the actual law. This current mix is somewhat balanced, and results in not too many controversial decisions (the absolute horror of Obamacare being a notable exception).
Once a judge is apponted to the court, they are there for life, or until they choose to retire. I am sure there is some mechanism for removing a judge, but it would have to be a VERY unusual circumstance (and I don't think it has ever happened). When a judge leaves (or dies), the current President gets to nominate a replacement - anyone they want. The Senate gets to sit in judgement of that nominee and approve or disapprove of them. Rarely does a candidate fail to pass the Senate review - especially when the Senate belongs to the President's Party.
So, if an opening on the Court happens in the next four years, Obama is going to choose another hard core liberal to fill it, and the Senate will confirm the selection. If that judge is replacing one of the conservative judges, the court will become a hard left wing rubber stamp for Obama's policies. Liberals may disagree with that, but look at the history - tell me ONE example of a case where a liberal judge sided with the conservatives on anything approaching a controversial case. If we end up with 5 liberals on the bench, we might as well shut the court down and save the money spent to operate it - since every decision will be rendered before the cases are even heard.
Here's who is sitting on the bench right now:
Chief Justice John Roberts. Appointed by George W. Bush. Thought to have been a consistent conservative, until he sided with liberals on Obamacare. His vote on any specific case is unpredictable. 57 years old, appointed to the bench in 2005.
Justice Antonin Scalia. Appointed by Ronald Reagan. Consistently conservative. Predictably conservative votes on almost all cases. 76 years old, appointed to the bench in 1986.
Justice Anthony Kennedy. Appointed by Ronald Reagan. Kennedy is regarded as the one true swing vote on the court, he can't be predicted to land on one side or the other on any case. 78 years old, appointed to the bench in 1988.
Justice Clarence Thomas. Appointed by George H. W. Bush. Consistently conservative. Predictably conservative votes on almost all cases. Considered by most to the be most conservative member of the court. 64 years old, appointed to the bench in 1991.
Justice Samuel Alito. Appointed by George W. Bush. For the most part conservative, though not as much as he indicated he would be during his Senate hearings. 62 years old, appointed to the bench in 2006.
Justice Stephen Breyer. Appointed by Bill Clinton. Consistently liberal. Predictable liberal vote on almost all cases. 74 years old, appointed to the bench in 1994.
Justice Ruth Ginsburg. Appointed by Bill Clinton. Staunch liberal. Predictable liberal vote on almost all cases. 79 years old, appointed to the bench in 1993.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Appointed by Barack Obama. Staunch liberal. Predictable liberal vote on all cases. 58 years old, appointed to the bench in 2009.
Justice Elena Kagan. Appointed by Barack Obama. Staunch liberal, was Obama's White House lawyer and a staff lawyer for Bill Clinton. No judicial experience whatsoever. Predictable liberal vote on all issues and cases. 52 years old, appointed to the bench in 2010.
Pundits have predicted there may be as many as three retirements during Obama's second term, due to age.
If (age 76) Scalia retires, Obama scores a coup. He will replace one of the most conservative judges, and tilt the court to the far left.
If (age 79) Ginsburg goes, it is a push. One liberal will be replaced with another.
If (age 74) Breyer hangs it up, it is also a push - liberal for liberal.
So, for conservatives, we have to hope and pray that Antonin Scalia holds on for another 4 years, to prevent us from being saddled with a far left Supreme Court. Justice Scalia has recently written a book. During his press tour for the book, he hinted strongly that he is getting to the point of wanting to retire.
For liberals, replacing Scalia would be akin to hitting the jackpot. Likewise, dumping Ginsburg and Breyer would be very desirable - replacing old liberals with younger liberals would guarantee those seats will remain liberal for many years to come.
Justice Scalia ... for the sake of our country and the conservative principles you have so strongly supported ... PLEASE DON'T GO!
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Monday, November 14, 2011
This Isn't A Surprise, II
As expected, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case involving Obamacare. As I undersatand it, the chosen case is the one put forth by Virginia, challenging the constitutionality of the law. A Federal Appeals Court ruled in favor of Virginia, which was immediately appealed by Obama's DoJ.
The case is to be heard in the March time frame. A decision is expected in June/July. The court has set aside a whopping 5.5 hours for arguments - which is a very small time period, but is actually lengthy in comparison to other Supreme Court cases. 1.5 hours of that is dedicated to arguments over whether finding one part of the law unconstitutional would void the entire law. Personally, I think putting an arbitrary time limit on what can be presented is bullshit, given the enormity of the issue. I mean, one sixth of our economy and our very way of life hangs in the balance, and these folks can't even put in a full day on it?
Heavy lobbying is going on by both sides currently. The left wants Clarence Thomas to recuse himself, because of hiw wife's ties to a lobbying group. The right wants Elena Kagan to recuse herself, since she was the White House's lawyer while Obamacare was being drafted and passed, and was seen publicly cheering when it passed. Either of these two recusing themselves will decide the case before it is even heard. If they both recuse themselves, the balance of power is unaffected.
When all is said and done, the issue, as I've said before, will likely come down the vote of one judge - one who is such a loose cannon no one can predict where he's going to land on any given issue. It is also likely to come down what the Court decides is the definition of 'tax'.
The Obama Administration furiously fought against any mention of Obamacare, specifically the individual mandate, being a tax, while the law was being being shoved through Congress. As soon as it passed, their tact changed - suddenly it could be called a tax, because that would give the Administration the argument that because it is a tax, then Congress has the power to levy it. Nowhere in the Obamacare bill is the word 'tax' mentioned. There are penalties and fines discussed, but not TAX.
Either side who thinks this is a slam dunk decision for their stance is engaging in some very wishful thinking. I know what this decision should be, but I don't have any idea if that decision will be made.
I also don't know what will happen in the aftermath. If the ruling goes against Obama, will he and Dem leadership in Congress abide by it, or will they just ignore it? If the law is ruled unconstitutional, does that instantly invalidate the law, or does Congress have to go back and specifically rescind it? If the ruling favors Obama, Republicans options are very limited. The only thing they can do is hope that they win both houses of Congress and the White House, in order to craft legislation repealing Obamacare. If they don't win all three, they will have to try to cut pieces of Obamacare off by cutting funding here and there - which will ultimately fail if Obama sits there with the veto pen.
The case is to be heard in the March time frame. A decision is expected in June/July. The court has set aside a whopping 5.5 hours for arguments - which is a very small time period, but is actually lengthy in comparison to other Supreme Court cases. 1.5 hours of that is dedicated to arguments over whether finding one part of the law unconstitutional would void the entire law. Personally, I think putting an arbitrary time limit on what can be presented is bullshit, given the enormity of the issue. I mean, one sixth of our economy and our very way of life hangs in the balance, and these folks can't even put in a full day on it?
Heavy lobbying is going on by both sides currently. The left wants Clarence Thomas to recuse himself, because of hiw wife's ties to a lobbying group. The right wants Elena Kagan to recuse herself, since she was the White House's lawyer while Obamacare was being drafted and passed, and was seen publicly cheering when it passed. Either of these two recusing themselves will decide the case before it is even heard. If they both recuse themselves, the balance of power is unaffected.
When all is said and done, the issue, as I've said before, will likely come down the vote of one judge - one who is such a loose cannon no one can predict where he's going to land on any given issue. It is also likely to come down what the Court decides is the definition of 'tax'.
The Obama Administration furiously fought against any mention of Obamacare, specifically the individual mandate, being a tax, while the law was being being shoved through Congress. As soon as it passed, their tact changed - suddenly it could be called a tax, because that would give the Administration the argument that because it is a tax, then Congress has the power to levy it. Nowhere in the Obamacare bill is the word 'tax' mentioned. There are penalties and fines discussed, but not TAX.
Either side who thinks this is a slam dunk decision for their stance is engaging in some very wishful thinking. I know what this decision should be, but I don't have any idea if that decision will be made.
I also don't know what will happen in the aftermath. If the ruling goes against Obama, will he and Dem leadership in Congress abide by it, or will they just ignore it? If the law is ruled unconstitutional, does that instantly invalidate the law, or does Congress have to go back and specifically rescind it? If the ruling favors Obama, Republicans options are very limited. The only thing they can do is hope that they win both houses of Congress and the White House, in order to craft legislation repealing Obamacare. If they don't win all three, they will have to try to cut pieces of Obamacare off by cutting funding here and there - which will ultimately fail if Obama sits there with the veto pen.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Obama's First Supreme Court Choice - How Far Left Will He Go?
Supreme Court Justice David Souter announced he will be resigning his seat on the court after it ends its current session, this coming summer. Souter, appointed by President Bush (41), had been generally considered one of the liberal members of the court, siding with the leftists on the vast majority of decisions. Given this, it is unlikely that Obama's new appointee will have any impact on the power balance on the court.
Souter promoted himself as a conservative during his vetting process, one who would uphold strict interpretation of the Constitution. Shortly after he was seated, it became apparent he had misled the President - he was a moderate left winger in sheep's clothing.
Early speculation in the news is that Obama will nominate US Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor. A female, of Puerto Rican heritage would fill two of Obama's stated criteria for the position - female, and a minority. However, it is far too early for a favorite to emerge.
This will be a very revealing pick for Obama. Will he choose a moderate liberal in the mold of Souter, or will he pick a far left nutjob - a clone of Ruth Bader Ginsburg? I would place money on the latter, especially since there is nothing Republicans can do to oppose the pick - he will jump at the chance to give a lifetime appointment to a radical judicial activist.
Obama is not constrained by many rules concerning his pick - a Supreme Court Justice does not have to meet any qualifications - doesn't have to have been a lawyer, or a judge, or have any judicial training or experience whatsoever. It could be Hillary Clinton ... Eric Holder ... Janet Napolitano ... all three have been mentioned as possibilities. He could nominate Bill Ayers, for pete's sake ....
Update - The more I hear in the media about this as the days go by, the worse it gets. There is no pretense of argument from the left about who the pick should be. The most important factor to them is which minority (or minorities) are represented by the pick. The only experience that Obama thinks is credible is how downtrodden the person and his monority affiliations are. He's flat come out and said that several times, that he wants someone who has been failed by the system, who has experienced being shafted by the government and big business. Judicial and Constitutional experience/knowledge are not necessary, and may not even be wanted. It is a given that such a minority person will be far left - any minority who is considered moderate or conservative is not a 'real' minority.
The argument from the right is still partisan, but much more logical. They want a conservative jurist, or at least a moderate one, who is judicially qualified, and will apply the law and the Constitution as it is written.
Our framers, the incredible people who established the foundation for this country, established the Supreme Court as a check on the power of the President and Congress - to make sure that what those two branches did was in agreement with the Constitution. The Supreme Court cannot make laws - it cannot make policy - that is an absolute mandate of our Constitution. However, Obama has made it very clear that he sees it differently - to him, the court is a tool to be used to make social changes . Apparently, Obama believes He knows better than the people who founded this country. No surprise there .....
Souter promoted himself as a conservative during his vetting process, one who would uphold strict interpretation of the Constitution. Shortly after he was seated, it became apparent he had misled the President - he was a moderate left winger in sheep's clothing.
Early speculation in the news is that Obama will nominate US Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor. A female, of Puerto Rican heritage would fill two of Obama's stated criteria for the position - female, and a minority. However, it is far too early for a favorite to emerge.
This will be a very revealing pick for Obama. Will he choose a moderate liberal in the mold of Souter, or will he pick a far left nutjob - a clone of Ruth Bader Ginsburg? I would place money on the latter, especially since there is nothing Republicans can do to oppose the pick - he will jump at the chance to give a lifetime appointment to a radical judicial activist.
Obama is not constrained by many rules concerning his pick - a Supreme Court Justice does not have to meet any qualifications - doesn't have to have been a lawyer, or a judge, or have any judicial training or experience whatsoever. It could be Hillary Clinton ... Eric Holder ... Janet Napolitano ... all three have been mentioned as possibilities. He could nominate Bill Ayers, for pete's sake ....
Update - The more I hear in the media about this as the days go by, the worse it gets. There is no pretense of argument from the left about who the pick should be. The most important factor to them is which minority (or minorities) are represented by the pick. The only experience that Obama thinks is credible is how downtrodden the person and his monority affiliations are. He's flat come out and said that several times, that he wants someone who has been failed by the system, who has experienced being shafted by the government and big business. Judicial and Constitutional experience/knowledge are not necessary, and may not even be wanted. It is a given that such a minority person will be far left - any minority who is considered moderate or conservative is not a 'real' minority.
The argument from the right is still partisan, but much more logical. They want a conservative jurist, or at least a moderate one, who is judicially qualified, and will apply the law and the Constitution as it is written.
Our framers, the incredible people who established the foundation for this country, established the Supreme Court as a check on the power of the President and Congress - to make sure that what those two branches did was in agreement with the Constitution. The Supreme Court cannot make laws - it cannot make policy - that is an absolute mandate of our Constitution. However, Obama has made it very clear that he sees it differently - to him, the court is a tool to be used to make social changes . Apparently, Obama believes He knows better than the people who founded this country. No surprise there .....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
