The BEST for the Court NOT the most young, ideological, politically advantageous. PLEASE
Edited on Sat May-02-09 10:27 AM by Sensitivity
That's the BUSH way!
What happened to the notion that the highest court was the place to which a truly wise one could be elevated at the END of a life of service to be in a unique position to protect the rights of the people.
Is it wrong to want great thinking and great rulings from the highest court rather that the mumblings of a "political" appointment such as Clarence Thomas.
Should Obama be thinking of "influencing" the court for decades by appointing as smart youngster or putting on the highest court best constitutional mind who could provide the nation with perhaps only a few decisions that shape constitutional history.
What happened to considering the great legal minds such as Laurence Tribe who have been kept off the highest court for decades only because we had to nominate a moderate to get through the RW litmus tests.
It depresses me to hear all the talk about identity politics around a decision that should be free of such considerations.
Thankfully there's actual measurements for votes for Reagan, but no actual measurement for wisdom. So it would seem, that the latter is true, and the former just a favorite sentiment among those nearing their first Social Security check
6. You have to fight a war with the army you have, not the one you wish you had.
And make no mistake - this is a war. The Republicons have been doing battle with America for going on 30 yrs now, and have made great gains via deceit, lies & outright criminal activity for all that time, while the Democrats insisted on playing by the rules. As a result, we've been losing the war for most of that time - mostly through simple attrition, with our best & most experienced warriors simply dying off after a lifetime of service. Scalia, Thomas & Roberts don't have great influence because they are great legal minds. They have influence because they will be there a very long time.
We've recently had several major victories, but even though the battles in 2006 & 2008 were won - this war is far from over.
10. Political considerations will be the overridding factor
that's just reality. Competence as a jurist or legal scholar will be of secondary consideration. Just check out the threads on this forum as to whom people want as potential nominees. A pessimistic view of things, but IMO that is how it will play out.
12. Much as I agree in theory, the reality is that's too dangerous
Quite simply there's too much at stake if we nominate say some 70+ year old with lots of experience, and then in 2016 the GOP takes the whitehouse, and the now near 80 year old judge dies of old age or something. We can't risk stuff like abortion getting outlawed, and people being stripped of other rights conservatives want to trample over because of that.
We're already in trouble from the GOP having 4 radical conservatives on the court, and one moderate conservative, all of which are likely to try to retire when they know a conservative will replace them.
Better to nominate someone in their 40's or low 50's, so they can do what Souter did, serve a decade or two, and then retire when a liberal is in the white house, or better yet when a liberal is in the whitehouse and liberals control congress. Souter himself said that if Obama got elected president he would be the first judge on the court to retire.
15. That's great and when the right wingers put their gun down, we'll put ours down
Edited on Sun May-03-09 03:02 AM by Hippo_Tron
The court is a partisan football and it has been since the Nixon Administration. The days of accepting any qualified person regardless of ideology are over. The fact is that the ideological makeup of the court has consequences. Bush v Gore proved it.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.