Most Important Issue Got Short Shrift in Campaign

The prospect of President Barack Obama with a “righteous wind” at his back, in lockstep with a Democrat Congress under the iron hand of Pelosi and Reid, has apparently not alarmed sufficient numbers of Americans to prevent this debacle from becoming a reality. Of all the havoc that one-party Democrat rule can wreak, perhaps the most troubling of all is what they will do to the judicial branch and the very rule of law.

In four years, perhaps eight, of wielding the massive powers of the federal government and spending trillions of dollars of the people’s money, one can scarcely imagine what is in store for us. The Obama campaign was waged on the singular promise of “change” and the proposition that the government will meet the people’s every need—housing, medical care, education, etc.—and that only the “rich” will pay. Such a campaign will be expected to deliver, and in short order.

There will be time in the days and months ahead to talk about—or more likely rail against from the sidelines—the coming agenda (think New Deal times the Great Society on steroids).

The most far-reaching consequence of this election, however, may be an issue that was almost never discussed: the future of the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court. It wasn’t until the third presidential debate that it was finally raised, and it received a fleeting but revealing treatment from both candidates.

Senator McCain gave a fairly typical Republican answer. He believes that the President has a right to appoint justices who reflect his philosophy and that the Senate’s role is to confirm based on qualifications, not ideology. As President, he would appoint judges based on strict adherence to the Constitution, judges who would “apply” law, not “make” law from the bench. Yet he was quick to point out that he would not impose a specific issue litmus test (read anti-abortion) on prospective nominees. For some reason this is deemed unseemly to Republican presidents.

Democratic presidents have had, on this as on so many issues, the best of both worlds. They say, as Senator Obama did in the debate, that they would not apply a “litmus” test to judicial nominations. But in practice, they do just that, and with little objection from either supine Republicans in the Senate or from the Liberal Establishment Media (LEM). All of Bill Clinton’s Supreme Court appointments are avowed and intractable defenders of Roe v. Wade, for example. And we can expect the same from a President Obama, there can be no doubt.

In addition to an unequivocal statement that judges and justices should uphold the abortion right as annunciated in Roe, Senator Obama described his approach to judicial nominations thusly:

I will look for those judges who have an outstanding judicial record, who have the intellect, and who hopefully have a sense of what real-world folks are going through.

A few moments later he added:

I think that it's important for judges to understand that if a woman is out there trying to raise a family, trying to support her family, and is being treated unfairly, then the court has to stand up, if nobody else will. And that's the kind of judge that I want.

Apparently, the role of judges is not to serve as impartial arbiters, deciding cases by applying the law to the facts at hand. It is rather to decide first which party in a case deserves more empathy and then decide the case in her favor. It is emotion-based, rather than law-based. (In this worldview, it seems that the Oprah would be the best possible candidate for Supreme Court justice?)

I don’t know what’s more alarming: That this little moment went by without much objection from McCain and virtually no analysis by the talking heads thereafter? Or the fact that a Harvard educated lawyer who is apparently about to assume the presidency of the United States said it?

In the debate, Obama cited the case of Lily Ledbetter, who brought an equal-pay lawsuit against her employer, which had allegedly paid male managers in similar positions more than they had paid her. The US Supreme Court denied Ms. Ledbetter’s claim onthe very simple basis that she brought it long after the statute of limitations for such a suit. In other words, she did not follow the legal rules for such a claim. Obama would have had the court ignore the statute of limitations, because the justices in effect should have felt sorry for Ms. Ledbetter. They should have simply set aside the law and made a decision purely based on empathy.

That’s not to say whether Ms. Ledbetter did or did not have a legitimate claim regarding equal pay, or that the statue of limitations shouldn’t be longer. But that’s not the point. The point is, if the statute should be extended, that is up to legislators to do, not the courts. (Indeed, Obama chided McCain for voting against extending this limitation in the Senate).

We know that Obama has said in recently uncovered interviews that the US Constitution is “fundamentally flawed” because it did not enumerate “positive” rights that would confer upon government the authority to implement “redistributive justice.” In other words, the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of speech, press, and religion, for example, are inadequate. There should also be “rights” to healthcare, education, affordable housing, etc., that the government will provide to those who cannot or will not provide for themselves.

In recent decades, two-term presidents have appointed at least two of nine Supreme Court justices; fifty or more federal circuit court judges; and hundreds of federal district court judges. These are lifetime appointments of people who have tremendous power to apply or ignore the law, as they see fit, and to ultimately determine what the Constitution means in very practical terms. These are the people that can cement the “right” to abortion; can take away the right to bear arms; and can render the right to one’s own property almost meaningless.

Of all the horrors of an impending Obama administration, I find it most troubling that the power to appoint these judges and justices will be in the hands of a man who apparently disdains the rule of law and the very Constitution that he will swear to preserve, protect, and defend.


Posted by Michael Andreola Sr. at November 4, 2008 9:43 AM
Comments
Comment #269435


Posted by Michael Andreola Sr. at November 4, 2008 09:43 AM

MA,

Unlike what has happened with the current honest, honorable, above board, with integrity, menagerie-in-chief?

Posted by: Marysdude at November 4, 2008 4:14 PM
Comment #269436

Author’s note: I meant to say, in the opening paragraph, “has apparently not alarmed sufficient numbers of Americans, if the polls are to be believed …” After all, it ain’t over till all the votes are counted, no matter how bad it looked for McCain leading up to today.

Posted by: Michael Andreola Sr. at November 4, 2008 4:23 PM
Comment #269439

Michael,
Bush and conservative Republicans led us through 9/11, the Patriot Act, surveilling Americans without probable cause, torture, the aftermath of Katrina, the Terry Schiavo debacle, two wars, over 4,000 American soldiers dead, over 30,000 wounded, and possibly over one million Iraqis dead; two recessions, the doubling of the national debt, a budget deficit that will go over $700 billion next year, the economy shedding 700,000 jobs ytd, over $1 trillion lost in the financial sector meltdown already, with another $700 being thrown into the mill for grist…

And now you’re worried?

By the way, Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago School of Law from 1992 to 2004, and he was elected editor of the Harvard Law Review, and he graduated from Harvard magna cum laude. His professional life has been devoted to the law as well as his community and public service.

To suggest Obama “disdains the rule of law and the very Constitution that he will swear to preserve, protect, and defend” is shameful, despicable, and reprehensible.

Posted by: phx8 at November 4, 2008 4:37 PM
Comment #269440

sorry mate the idea of a court that is in the middle of the political spectrum does not bring fear to me. The judges that are close to retiring are left leaners and personally — I would prefer to see them replaced with the same.
I know its always been the rights dream to stack the court with far right judges — but tough shit — you will not get your wish.
at this time 6 of the justices where appointed by the right and you still not happy.
a split court is whats best for this country.
—Savage

Posted by: A Savage at November 4, 2008 4:43 PM
Comment #269441

Great article Michael. I would amend your statement; ” I find it most troubling that the power to appoint these judges and justices will be in the hands of a man who apparently disdains the rule of law and the very Constitution that he will swear to preserve, protect, and defend.”

by adding “with his fingers and toes crossed”.

I find marysdude comment disturbing. It would appear that he condones the reasoning that Michael disparages for judicial rulings. I am sure he doesn’t understand that without consistent following of the laws of the U.S. we will have failed in our attempt to be a nation of law. To say “they did it” so it must be OK is simpleminded and un-American.

American’s demand and expect equal treatment under the law in our courts regardless of sex, race, financial stature, notoriety, religion, influence or any other reason. Would marysdude have it any other way?

Posted by: Jim M at November 4, 2008 4:44 PM
Comment #269442

lets hope the majority of people are not voting based on the philosophy of WHAT CAN MY COUNTRY DO FOR ME. you know, give me affordable housing, free healthcare, a monthly ceck,etc.

Posted by: dbs at November 4, 2008 4:47 PM
Comment #269443

No we are voting on the basics of we are sick of what your side is doing to US. — and I am ashamed to say — I was one of the people that voted for bush in 2000. sorry — you had the ball and complete control of the field for 6 years and you dropped it /stomped it and deflated it. Now your disappointed you can not burn it also?—
— Savage

Posted by: A Savage at November 4, 2008 4:56 PM
Comment #269448

appearently you forgot our why side was put into power in the first place. let me remind you. it was because your side had been screwing things up since the 60s. if the democrats had been doing such a great job they would have remained in power, but power corrupts, so now the pendulem swings the other way. hey it’s your turn to screw things up again. the more things change the more they stay the same. it’ll be short lived though if you go back to your old ways, you know tax increases, and asinine gun control laws.

Posted by: dbs at November 4, 2008 5:46 PM
Comment #269449

Jim M…

To say “they did it” so it must be OK is simpleminded and un-American.

I don’t think dude is giving you a “neener neener” at all. I think he’s merely pointing out that the screwing we got was on “your watch”….with Bush asking for, ordering, supporting and condoning it.
I would add that he certainly doesn’t appear to be simple minded, and are you now calling veterans un-American??????

Posted by: janedoe at November 4, 2008 5:46 PM
Comment #269450

janedoe

i’m not saying dude is, but what i will say is it is possible for veterans to be un american. murtha is a perfect example. what he did to those marines at haditha was in excusable, and disgusting. hopefully he finally pays for it with his congressional seat, but i won’t hold my breath.

Posted by: dbs at November 4, 2008 5:54 PM
Comment #269452

janedoe writes; “I would add that he certainly doesn’t appear to be simple minded, and are you now calling veterans un-American??????

Hardly, janedoe as I am a vet myself. Simple mindedness and un-American are my description of those who would support our courts becoming not a place where the law is upheld and justice is administered, but rather, a place where a person in a robe pronounces judgments based on personal feelings of righteousness. Mr. Obama’s statements appear to support such an ignoble change.

Posted by: Jim M at November 4, 2008 6:02 PM
Comment #269453

“The most far-reaching consequence of this election, however, may be an issue that was almost never discussed: the future of the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court.”

That is why almost 2 years ago I stated I would vote for the Democratic candidate regardless of who it was. Today I did just that.

The problem I have with the right wing rhetoric is the misassumption that the current administration’s appointess as well as former conservative appointees somehow have any superior inspirations or moral integrity. Conservative judges show no more superior skills at the correct interpretation of the constitution than any others on the court. While Alito may be qualified and may show some actual ability to base decisions on precedent surely Scalia and Thomas are nothing more than conservative movement ideologues out to overturn Roe V Wade based upon personal religious beliefs. To think that more of these types of appointments to the SCOTUS would result in more liberty for all Americans is wishful thinking at best as the track record of the conservative wing of the SCOTUS shows ideology and politics is more important than law.

To think that “originalist” theory is a superior interpretation over “living document” theory is pure ideology.

The conservative nonsense about rule of law is laughable after Reagan and Bush II, totally laughable. Where have you guys been hiding?

Hopefully Obama will have a chance to appoint 2 or 3 judges to the SCOTUS. I am willing to bet Harriet Miers will not be one of those selected.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 4, 2008 6:28 PM
Comment #269454

j2t2 jokingly says; “Hopefully Obama will have a chance to appoint 2 or 3 judges to the SCOTUS. I am willing to bet Harriet Miers will not be one of those selected.”

I’ll see your Miers and raise the bet with Bill Ayers as an appropriate Obama selection.

Posted by: Jim M at November 4, 2008 6:43 PM
Comment #269457

The door swings both ways Jefferson had to contend with his cousin John Marshall, and you think Obama would consider Bill Clinton :) as a justice assuming bill would want it or even up to it, I’ve said for years i think he has great potential as a justice as a centrist.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at November 4, 2008 7:34 PM
Comment #269460

Jim M I predict Ayers will be as active a memebr of the Obama team as he is now. In other words he will be a distinguished professor of education at the U of I in Chicago.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 4, 2008 8:31 PM
Comment #269462

Wimpy Nancy and milk toast Reid are now iron handed?
Gee, that’s a Republican flip flop.

Hmmm. I’m guessing Michael is scared that the Supreme Court might have to decide an election in 2016. I mean what’s a good ole boy to do, if the fix isn’t in?

Posted by: googlumpugus at November 4, 2008 8:55 PM
Comment #269467

Michael

Of all the horrors of an impending Obama administration, I find it most troubling that the power to appoint these judges and justices will be in the hands of a man who apparently disdains the rule of law and the very Constitution that he will swear to preserve, protect, and defend.

Right back at ya. I can’t imagine anything more horrifying than republicans being allowed to continue the regression we have suffered over the last eight years. Consider an Obama win a check on all those bad policies and poor appointments.

Posted by: RickIL at November 4, 2008 9:22 PM
Comment #269471

Sarah who?

Posted by: googlumpugus at November 4, 2008 10:51 PM
Comment #269486

This is a defining time, hour, and moment in history not just because Barack Obama is black. He represents a fresh & new government that connects with “the people of this mighty nation”. One that isn’t willing to bow down to the vicissitudes of the monotonous “politics and business as usual”. Offering a new attitude on reforming broken policies, a new hope for the restoring the socio-economic status of our nation, a new energy and spirit for the spirations of many striving for “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, a new plan or method for moving forward, a new hope and morale for those who feel like they have been blugened by a system offering what seems to be fueled by broking promises. He presents the demographic of “one for all”. We are spurned, ignited, and driven by a sincere pledge to restore, rebuild, and reshape, and revive the bureaucracies that have been cancerous to the loop holes of or system. We have stood, voted and the tally has been counted, and now is the time for everyone sattle up on the road toward change with the righteous winds blowing against our backs. Together we must change the way we think, talk, act, and walk. We must change how we view of fellow Americans. We must stand together, side by side, with a conscientously determined effort to move forward to learn from the past, change our present, and feed the mustard seeds of our future. We can not go back to an old character and mindset of “I have to do or make good for myself and my own”. We must work with “a unity of the spirit through the bond of peace.” We must encourage our fellow American to do better and work harder: to not act on war, violence, ignorance, mis-education, and tolerance of the pillars that threaten the infrastructure of our nations foundation. We all have to do our part in sewing seeds of “hope, love, peace, brotherly kindness, self-control, and faith.” Let’s purge the dis-honest, get-over, back-bitting, back-stabbing, and dog-eat-dog bussiness that has been the mitochondrion of our economic system, judicial, and legislative system. Let’s stop cheating our selves and selling each other short as a justifiable means to an end. Let’s foster the betterment of education and the ability to attain it, let’s re-vamp of welfare to work programs with the end goal being “working to make a life, not making a living.” Let’s encourage those who are entraped to abusive habits, lifestyles, and ways that threaten or good name and credit. Let’s educate those who are ignorant and misunderstand the “roadmap to recovery and progress”. Let’s inspire, motivate, and foster the hopes and dreams of the children of our future. Let’s care for those who have blazed our trails, who have given there life to service and committed themselves to work with a nature for the “common good.” Let’s help those who want to move ahead but feel cornered with there backs against the walls because of foolish and mis-guided decisions in early or late stages of their lives. Let’s reward the hard work and efforts of those who strive to do good and do better. “Good, better, best never let us rest, until our good is our better, and our better is our best.”

Posted by: Jerrell D. Bratcher at November 5, 2008 2:38 AM
Comment #269495

The right wing comments at this historic occaision are sad and troubling.
Too bad they cannot follow the example of their Presidential nominee. I was very impressed by John McCains gracious and elequoent concession speech. It was one of the few gracious and honorable actions he and his team have taken during this campaign. I honestly believe that if he had conducted his campaign in the same way he conducted his speech last night, the results might have been different.
those of you who insist on trying to continue the “cultural fight” with the same BS boogeyman worries (the Supreme court “horror stories” being promoted here are so bogus as to be laughable to any but the most blinded right-wing partisen)
The landslide (to me) shows that a majority of the country is not interested in continuing this bogus “war”
For those of you who wish to continue fighting in your sandbox, fine, the rest of us will be out here in the real world getting our country back on its feet, working TOGETHER to fix the problems and the damage wrought by the 8 years of Republican rule.
I suggest that the cultural warriors will become extinct (hopefully) your message of fear, decisiveness and outright lies no longer has a place at the table with the adults.

Posted by: Russ at November 5, 2008 8:27 AM
Comment #269500

russ

“The landslide (to me) shows that a majority of the country is not interested in continuing this bogus “war””

this election was about the economy pure and simple. you’de like it to be about the war, but it wasn’t. IMO had the economy been strong ie. less the subprime mortgage meltdown, and the huge drop in the markets we’d be looking at a different outcome. lets hope the democrats don’t go back to thier ways in the first couple years of clinton or they will find themselves back in the minority.

Posted by: dbs at November 5, 2008 9:17 AM
Comment #269502

In other words, Russ, those of us who will dare to dissent from the coming regime (what you call “fighting in your sandbox”) should just shut up. We need to stop being so childish as to express any disagreement. It is more mature to work TOGETHER to fix things. I love how tolerant the liberals really are. Where will the ACLU be when Obama/Pelosi/Reid try to re-enact the Orwellian-named “Fairness Doctrine”? What, you say, they will be all for the “Fairness Doctrine?” I am shocked! Oh, that’s right. Conservative talk radio is “hate speech” which we have already shown can be outlawed. And now, according to Charles Schumer, it is also “pornorgrapy.” Nice. Obama wants us all to work together and heal divisions? Sure. If we all agree to accept everything he offers without question, we are more than welcome to come along for the ride. Isn’t he wonderful? So magnanimous.

Posted by: right winger at November 5, 2008 9:24 AM
Comment #269503

i just saw a group of people on the news celebrating in the streets in DC. one was waving a red flag with the hammer and sickle on it. how disgusting.

Posted by: dbs at November 5, 2008 9:29 AM
Comment #269506

dbs
I completely disagree
currently I see a “war” still be raged by people on one side of it.

Regardless of the economy, if McCain had spent more time offering solutions and less time fear mongering and denigrating his opponent I believe the outcome would have been at least closer, if not different.

Regardless of the condition of the economy, I heard many many many comments by highly placed people who lamented that the McCain of 2008 was not the same man they respected and supported in 2000.
They also felt that he had abandoned his principals, principles and integrity in his bid for this job.

I think the winnings of the younger crowd, the women, the minorities, and many of the whites was a referendum on the BS devisive politics that have been the norm for too long.
Obama did not do that
He offered hope, vision, direction, a POSITIVE and the country is HUNGRY for that — and it is not just the offering, by electing him by this large margin, I believe that people are convinced that he has the capability of delivering — we trust that he will try — not just empty vacant promises, but that he means what he says, and that he will honestly try.

I have a friend who is a staunch non-left wing supporter (i.e. won’t vote for Obama, but hates McCain) and altho we have different opinions on the solutions, we both respect each other and we both agree that we are tired of this Partisen BS that has occurred for too long, and we are looking forward to the politicians acting in a more civilized, adult manner — we were trying to figure out a way to get that message across, and we are hoping (even tho he did not want Obama elected) that a decisive election result MIGHT just do that job.

It was a shame really, there was the opportunity for both sides to present their POSITIVE cases to the country — so the vote COULD BE about the issues, and the positions, and the proposed direction for the country, but I feel that one side did that (and one) and one side concentrated on trying to discredit, denigrate and create fear about his opponent (and lost)


I remember a similar feeling when Ford took office
I felt the country had turned a corner — we had had so much strife during the Nixon fiasco — it was truely an ugly time in America — and the relief that was felt because this honorable, just man took over and was going to provide a new beginning for the country — we needed it then, and we need it now.

I also found it interesting
In listening to some right-wing radio talk shows, listeners were calling in -“frightened” of Barack Obama, and some were truely frightened and did not know what to do, Appocolypse was upon us!!
and I got a real kick because some of the right wing commentators who had spent so much time promoting Obama as the devil incarnate were suprized (????) that their listeners were “afraid”
their comments NOW were nothing but
“You have nothing to be afraid of, why are you afraid, Obama is really a decent guy, we disagree with blah, blah, blah”
Comeon
You fed your listeners all this garbage about how OH MY GOD if Obama wins the world will come to an end, and you are suprised that your listeners now feel that way?????

(all except for Shaun Hannity, of course, but what more can you expect from him??)

come on guys
We ALL want a better life, we all want a better America, we want all of our citizens to do better, be better, be safe, have their rights protected, have hope, have peace,
Our country needs all of us to work together to fix the problems we are facing.
“Can’t we all just get along?”
(Rodney King)

Posted by: Russ at November 5, 2008 9:40 AM
Comment #269509

rightwinger
comeon,
This is EXACTLY what I was talking about

In other words, Russ, those of us who will dare to dissent from the coming regime (what you call “fighting in your sandbox”) should just shut up.

NO
If you disagree with positions, policies and decisions we expect (and support) you in your efforts to communicate those disagreements

But it is the MANNER that in which these disagreements have been voiced that is got to stop.

The name calling, the misrepresentaion, the lies, the “He is a socialist” all that BS that is NOT a discussion of the issue, the solution nor the problem THOSE are the derisive actions that WILL NOT HELP

For the right wing to complain about opression of dissent is laughable after the past 8 years of those of us who disagreed being labeled non-patriots, traitors, terrorists, etc — we have persisted in our dissent and believe that dissent is an essential part of the American Liberty and rights — WE (on the left) to my knowledge(but I will limit it to ME and those I know) am not interested in suppressing dissent — I (WE) BELIEVE that is is the duty to dissent.
It is patriotic to dissent
However we do not have to have the dissent be in the form of violence, expression of hatred, disrespect, slurs, labels, denigration.

I may disagree with your positions, may not understand why you believe them, may think you stupid for thinking them, but I will try to adress the issue, and will fight for your right to express your position, no matter how much I disagree or think stupid. (it is easy to support dissent if you think it is well-thought out, and has merit — even if you still disagree with it)

NO ONE ON THE LEFT, THAT I AM AWARE OF HAS EXPRESSED ANY INTEREST IN THE SUPPRESION OF IDEAS, DISSENT, NOR OF LIBERTIES AND RIGHTS —


Posted by: Russ at November 5, 2008 9:54 AM
Comment #269511

russ

we’ll see what happens. i’ve heard all this before, an end to partisan politics and such, but it never materializes. in the end both sides go back to business as usual and we are the ones that lose. congratulations on your win though. i’m not one to bitter over things i can’t change, and it really serves no purpose anyway.

Posted by: dbs at November 5, 2008 9:58 AM
Comment #269516

I realized that as soon as I said that we are not interested in supression of liberties that I can expect a gun-control response
OHMYGOD HE IS GOING TO TAKE MY GUNS AWAY.

I would like to offer this as an example of perhaps if we listen to each other we can come to a solution for both sides

Our concern is the criminal USE of guns, the threat to safety that they pose and are trying to find some way to reduce or eliminate that threat.

I believe the concern of the “otehr side” is that inspite of their not being part of the criminal problem, they will suffer as a result of efforts to reduce the criminal use of guns.

I realize I am not a typical representative of the “left” I own, use and build guns, believe we have a right to them, and know that RESPONSIBLE gun-owners are not part of the problem — and can be a deterrent to the criminal problem.

We do need to address both concerns
Safety for those who are unfamiliar with guns, afraid of guns and threatened by people with guns.

The right of those who have not committed any crime, nor even considering commiting any crime to continue to have the right to own and use guns in a peaceful, lawful, responsible manner.

I think we can agree on many things, and if we work together instead of calling each other names, or using labels to group people or discredit their ideas — we should be able to make our country safer without making responsible gun-owners suffer a loss of their rights.

There are people on both sides who take exteme positions, but the more of us who come to the middle to sit down and discuss our commonalities and differences, the less the effect those on the margins will have (they will become noisy illrelevant background) — In the Northwest here we do have a precendence
Many years ago a coalition was formed between envrionmentalists and loggers — they spent YEARS working together to form a plan that both sides could live with, the process resulted in both sides coming to a new respect for those of the “other side” — once they got together and saw each other as humans — not labels, they were able to work together — in an adult, civilized way and both sides came out happy with the results.
And if “tree-huggers’ and loggers in the Northwest can come together, can’t we all?

Posted by: Russ at November 5, 2008 10:05 AM
Comment #269517

DBS
It will go back to business as usual if WE let it
WE need to be the ones to FORCE THEM to continue down this path

Don’t sit back, don’t let them go back to business as usual
WE (together) can do it, WE just have to reject any messages coming from them that indicate going back down the path we have just left.

It is like training a dog, they only do what they are rewarded for (and attention is reward, for dogs and politicians)
We should start adopting “Cesar’s Way” for our politicians as well as our Dogs!!
(Exercise, Discipline, Affection, in that order!)
(http://www.cesarmillaninc.com/)

Posted by: Russ at November 5, 2008 10:10 AM
Comment #269520

Michael A.

Actually I took into account the Supreme Court Justices when I cast my vote on Tuesday. I honestly believe that Obama will actually try to find someone well-equipped and knowledgeably in trying to fill any empty seats. His pick for VP was inspired, and I believe he would do an equally good job at selecting new Justices.

Besides, I prefer a court that is well balanced, not top heavy on either side of the fence.

Posted by: Linda H. at November 5, 2008 10:37 AM
Comment #269524

Russ,
You make a lot of good points and represent a very reasonable left-leaning perspective. But don’t you know that there are those on the hard left who want to shut down talk radio? This has gone beyond a talking point. In the next Congress and administration, it could be a reality. Did you not hear the influential Senator Shumer just the other day? If you and other liberals (who are honest about freedom of speech) oppose the so-called Fairness Doctrine and will voice that opposition to your new government, I would applaud and honor you, sir.

As to your position on guns, again very reasonable, as is your example about loggers and tree-huggers. But again, you cannot deny that your position on guns is anathema to the hard left, which really believes there is no right to bear arms by law-abiding citizens, no matter how well regulated. The DC gun ban was an outright ban and was barely overturned by the Supreme Court. Do you think Obama’s court picks will vote to uphold the interpretation of the Second Amendment that acknowledges an individual right to own a gun? I think you are deceiving yourself if you do. I hope I am wrong. Again, as to tree-huggers, if there are some who can tolerate legitimiate logging, God bless them. But there is a powerful element within that movement that is against logging, period.
If all liberals were like you, I wouldn’t be so worried about the future.

Posted by: rightwinger at November 5, 2008 11:06 AM
Comment #269528

rightwinger,
and you seem to be ignoring the fact that the democrat party is not in lock step on this issue and the hard left does not control the party.
Not that long ago the right was saying the democrats would lose due to the fact it has so many ideologies under 1 umbrella.
Savage

Posted by: A Savage at November 5, 2008 11:17 AM
Comment #269529

look at the odds, The oldest two justices — half the court’s liberal wing — top the list of those considered likely to retire during the next presidential administration. Despite Stevens’ and Ginsburg’s apparent vigor, change on the Supreme Court is more likely than not over the next four years. so a even swap what’s the fuss.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at November 5, 2008 11:20 AM
Comment #269542

rightwinger

I acknowledged that there are those on BOTH sides that represent extreme viewpoints that are not acceptable to moderate or those of the other side.

My point exactly is that the more of us who come to the middle, and are interested in solving the problem rather than “being right” the less of an influence, or effect these people will have

If those of us interested in working together to solve the problem outnumber them, then their positions will not gain any traction
They will always be there, and they will always offer up their positions, so what?
as long as the rest of us realize that they do not represent ALL of that group (which is kind of where we have been in the past “You guys” and “Us Guys” get all lumped together)
There is now a time for “us guys” that represent wanting to find a solution.

You wouldn’t want “all liberals” like me
WE NEED the extremists — they are the ones too often that are the only ones that point the way to change, to a new possiblity.

The rest of us then need to take those ideas and make them a reality — not necessarily in the form originally presented, but take the essential, needed elements, the intent, the good parts, and turn it from a “concept vehicle” to a production version that is actually feasible for the American Highway!!
(so to speak)

Re: The fairness doctrine — I am not familiar with it but you have to be honest that some commentators have gone too far,
just as free speech does not include yelling “fire” in a theatre, we have also never accepted (or allowed to be legal) speech that incited violence
Another point that is often forgotten
The airwaves are not free, and belong to EVERYONE — it is the concept that because the PUBLIC OWNS the airwaves that broadcasters are not allowed to broadcast whatever they want without some restrictions
They are given the use of the airwaves (for their profit) within some bounds that the PUBLIC (thru their representatives) have determined.
Remember cigarette ads??
not anymore, eh?
There are also limits on certain words that are “not allowed”

I find it ironic that the right-wing commentators that have actually been the worst example of suppressing speech that disagrees with them (be honest, that is exactly what they do) are now complaining that their speech might be supressed.

I for one do not agree with a blanket sort of suppression, but as usual, without some form of regulation, there will always be idiots that go too far and make such regulation necessary.

When airplanes first came into being, anyone could build airplanes, anyone could fly airplanes, anyone could bill themselves as pilots or instructors etc.
But soon people were dying because unscrupulous (or just plain ingnorant) people got involved and were doing things and selling things that were killing people.
We now have the FAA and all the regulations that I live with on a daily basis in order to get our products to our customers.

We can make a difference if we would all abandon our “can’t do” attitude and the tendancy to SEEK OUT and tightly embrace all the reasons why it won’t work, can’t work, but if, what if,
I for one am tired of it
Tired of getting dragged down by people who have such negative attitudes.
Comon, it is more fun to be positive
It is more fun to try for something and not quite get there than it is to just pout and sit on the couch because you “know” “it can’t be done”

Whenever people tell me that you will never achieve some final result that I am going for, I tell them that even if I do not make it all the way, I will still end up much further along, much better, than if I didn’t even try.

Many people forget that in trying, in striving, you will move to a new place that you wouldn’t be by not trying in the first place.

It is NOT the destination, IT IS the JOURNEY.
Too many people focus so hard on the destination, they totally miss the best part, the journey.


Posted by: Russ at November 5, 2008 11:50 AM
Comment #269560

Rodney Brown,

Small consolation, but I’ll take it. Thanks.

Posted by: Mike Andreola Sr. at November 5, 2008 1:11 PM
Comment #269579

rightwinger -

Savage is right. The Democrats are NOT controlled by the extreme left. Most of us (including myself) would never support a total ban on guns. What we DO support is (just as with cars) total registration of guns and required safety training for all gun owners prior to ownership. The only thing wrong with these are in the fears of the extreme right that screams how this would somehow lead to a total ban on gun ownership i.e. “the guv’mint’s comin’ to git yer gun!”

This has not happened in any other democracy, and it won’t happen here.

When you see the difference between what is REAL in the world…and what is needless fear-mongering by extremists of either party, then you begin waking up with the rest of us.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at November 5, 2008 3:02 PM
Comment #269580

glenn

“This has not happened in any other democracy, and it won’t happen here.”

it happened in great britan, australia, and in california.

Posted by: dbs at November 5, 2008 3:07 PM
Comment #269582

glenn

“What we DO support is (just as with cars) total registration of guns”

gun ownership is a right. driving a car isn’t. registrations serve no purpose as criminals don’t register thier guns. all registrations do is tell the gov’t who has guns, and makes them far easier to confiscate. there are those in the gov’t that have that as thier ultimate goal whether you choose to believe it or not.

Posted by: dbs at November 5, 2008 3:12 PM
Comment #269588

Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor, why does anyone think he’d pick reactionaries as justices?

Posted by: Marysdude at November 5, 2008 3:37 PM
Comment #269591

Political pressure from his party that he has no history of standing up to?

I would also ask why he thought the President or Congress had the constitutional power to do some of the things he proposed…

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 5, 2008 3:44 PM
Comment #269595

contraian and dbs

now this is a beginning but i would like to see the conversation be more about
How can we achieve safety and protection of rights

and instead of saying
“We support total registration of guns” and training, etc
What about
We feel that registration would help
I (and other gun owners( would say
That is interesting, how do you envision that helping to reduce crime?

Lets keep the focus on the intent, not necessarily OUR specific idea of how to achieve that intent — the idea is to be open to ideas that will achieve the intent
The idea is to be open to the possiblity that our opinions are based on false assumptions

i.e. — “in order to achieve safety we need to register all guns” — what I need now is for the person to articulate the “because”
i.e. surface the assumption behind that statement of logic

when the “because” is surfaced, — it is the assumption behind that statement, we can then address that assumption and determine its validity.

I and other gun owners have some experience and knowledge that non-gun owners do not have
We know that registration, in and of itself, will have no effect — and that is why we are resistant to what appears to be something “reasonable” to non gun-owners — just as it “couldn’t hurt” (in their viewpoint) — neither will it “help” in our viewpoint.

You will find that gunowners are VERY supportive of laws that punish those that abuse or misuse guns — to us that is fair
If we do nothing wrong, we should not be punished.

however I will still give the other side the opportunity to explain to me why they think registration is part of the answer — out of that we might be able to glean some of the intent, and offer a counter proposal that addresses their intent and concern, but perhaps in a more productive, effective way — an alternative to registration,
but if we just attack each other we never get to that point
We just shout at each other over the wall, across the fence.

We argue because bottom down we both want something in common
A safe society
we need to cometogether to find a mutually acceptable way of doing that.

Posted by: Russ at November 5, 2008 4:15 PM
Comment #269597

Why do you want to take away guns
I don’t want to take away guns, I want ot be safe
and to me, in order to be safe I need to take away guns


the other side is
I want to be safe
but in order to be safe I need my guns


It is not about the guns, it is about being safe
How can the non-gun owning population feel safe and at the same time have responsible gun owners still own and use their guns?

we need to focus achieving security from unwanted gun violence

I think we can all agree that we all want to reduce or eliminate gun violence.
whether you own guns (legally and responsibly) or not — that is a common goal, right?

If they could feel safe in spite of whether anyone does or does not (legally) own guns then I would not expect there to be any more desire to “take your guns”

this is a touchy subject and many people go right into “I am right, you are wrong” mode and totally shut down
it can all start with a core that are determined NOT to do that.
and then spread that attitude like a virus and be adament to NOT ALLOW others to shut down the dialog — safety and security are too important to allow those people to shut down the solution process.

Posted by: Russ at November 5, 2008 4:22 PM
Comment #269613

Let’s see… the man hasn’t even been president-ELECT for 24 hours and you Reps/Cons are already predicting TEOTWAWKI* ???

Can you all just relax a little for a while and see what happens? Sure, he could turn out to be a disaster. But after 8 years of Bush/Cheney, Obama/Biden has a pretty low bar to hurdle, especially given that before they can really do much on their own policy initiatives, they’ve got to clean up Bush/Cheney’s messes.

Concerning judges, now maybe you have an idea of how the other side felt about the horrors Bush/Cheney foisted on the US. I can’t imagine McCain/Palin doing any better.

* The End Of The World As We Know It

Posted by: EJN at November 5, 2008 6:17 PM
Comment #269615

lol EJN
That`s been running through my mind all day
“It’s the end of the world as we know it.
It’s the end of the world as we know it.
It’s the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.”

—Savage

Posted by: A Savage at November 5, 2008 6:31 PM
Comment #269648

Too funny. Let’s all just get along. Get rid of the “can’t do” attitudes. Lets all work together.

Man, who are you talking to and what have you been doing before yesterday? Sorry to tell you but some people have been getting along just fine the last several years.

It’s nice you now have this attitude but sad it takes your side holding all the cards to get there. To be honest it will be nice to have a break from having to defend the guy I voted for everytime he sneezes, or reads a book too long. I think as much as anything you guys just wore out a lot of people.

So now you guys have all the power, it’s all on the Dems now. I’ll continue working, paying my bills and taxes, supporting the same causes. And I will continue to hope for the best for this country, and I feel just as proud and blessed to be an American today as I did yesterday and the day before that.

Posted by: andy at November 5, 2008 11:13 PM
Comment #269656

EJN,

Did you catch South Park tonight?

I can’t help but wish we had more of Matt and Trey and Penn and Teller (libertarians) out there hitting both sides evenly, unlike the Daily Show or Colbert (both of which I dearly enjoy, but…)

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 6, 2008 1:22 AM
Comment #269673

lurks

sorry we’re talking about registrations leading to confiscations. in 1989 then attorney general dan lundgren extended the the registration dead line for registering your AR, AK, and so on. people in good faith continued to register thier guns. the attorney general was sued by an anti gun group ( i want to say the brady campaign. at that time they may have had a different name )they won the case and all those guns were ordered surrendered, or removed. BTW i lived in california all my life up until a few months ago, so i know first hand about the assault on gun rights there.

Posted by: dbs at November 6, 2008 9:47 AM
Comment #269674

Rhinehold, no it’s not on until after my bedtime… What was it about, maybe I can catch a re-run?

Posted by: EJN at November 6, 2008 9:56 AM
Comment #269678

More on the original topic of judges:

Let’s pretend that Mr. Andreola’s premise is correct, i.e. that on January 20, 2009, Obama’s going to to present a slate of far, far lefty activist judges; the kind who will require pre-emptive 3rd trimester abortion ID cards to be issued to all boys and girls in kindergarten to carry without their parents permission and will jail anyone who says the words “God”, “Jesus” or “Holy Spriit” anywhere except a registered, tax-paying church, mosque or synagogue (I think those of us who aren’t absolutely hysterical about the loss of Rep/Con power know that Obama will do nothing anywhere close to remotely like that, but let’s just pretend, OK?)…

Stop and think back for just a second what the (minority) Senate Dems did pre-2006 whenever the Bush nominated any judge who was even an angstrom right of center. Any idea? It starts with F-I-L-I….

Yes, FILIBUSTER. All the Reps need to do if they don’t like Obama’s judicial picks is to filibuster the confirmation vote. Same goes for his cabinet picks.

Now, you may recall that when the Dems did this (again, pre-2006), the Reps complained bitterly that this was simply a despicable, cowardly, communist, unpatriotic tactic and that Bush’s judicial nominees deserved an “up or down” vote on the Senate floor. So it seems to me that to be consistent and, you know, not hypocritical, that the Reps would do unto others as they would have others do unto them.

So there’s your answer, Mr. Andreola - the Reps can easily, neatly, cleanly prevent TEOTWAWKI (judicial version) by simply hypocritically filibustering Obama’s judicial nominees -or- they can be consistent and have a valid reason to expect the Dems NOT to filibuster judicial nominees next time the tables are turned.

It’s their choice. What do you think they’ll choose?

Posted by: EJN at November 6, 2008 10:12 AM
Comment #269679

I lived in Ca over 40 years Turners thanks you for the plug. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California

Posted by: Rodney Brown at November 6, 2008 10:21 AM
Comment #269680

EJN

your right. you may also remember that the reps. could have changed the rules, and didn’t. we will see whether the dems will invoke the nuclear option in order to push obamas nominees through. this should be interesting to say the least.

Posted by: dbs at November 6, 2008 10:26 AM
Comment #269683

Rodney

i’ve done a lot of business with turners over the years. it’s a great store, i’ll miss it, and my friend that works in the huntington beach store, but not the ridiculous gun control laws in california.

Posted by: dbs at November 6, 2008 10:32 AM
Comment #269688

dbs , Yes they were the ultimate Outdoors Man_Women Store Around everything from A_Z.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at November 6, 2008 11:25 AM
Comment #269689

“your right. you may also remember that the reps. could have changed the rules, and didn’t. we will see whether the dems will invoke the nuclear option in order to push obamas nominees through. this should be interesting to say the least.”

I love revisionist history

“The maneuver was brought to prominence in 2005 when then-Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican of Tennessee) threatened its use to end Democratic-led filibusters of judicial nominees submitted by President George W. Bush. In response to this threat, Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate and prevent consideration of all routine and legislative Senate business. The ultimate confrontation was prevented by the Gang of 14, a group of seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, all of whom agreed to oppose the nuclear option and oppose filibusters of judicial nominees, except in extraordinary circumstances.” [from wiki]
Please note that the true story is —they tried to change the rules —but where stopped by moderates getting together and blocking them.
And at the time my thoughts where ” don’t these fools know this will bite them in the ass when the pendulum swings to the other side?”

—-Savage

Posted by: A Savage at November 6, 2008 11:33 AM
Comment #269692

Andy — what universe have you been hiding in??
Sorry to tell you but some people have been getting along just fine the last several years.
Some people??
and from your statements you seem to think the Left was not playing “nice”“

lets see I only have to go back less than 2 months to
“Paling around with terrorists”

I can pull numerous slurrs, accusations, slanders, intimidations, from the right anytime anyone on the left DARED to dissent regarding the war, attacks on the Constitution (in the name of homeland security) or DARED to justly criticize the President.
So YEA we are hoping that with THIS president we can take his example and get along and act adult for a change.

Mr McCain FINALLY presented some civility and grace in his concession speech, if he had had that tone and approach in his campaign, it might have been his victory speech on that night.
The country is turning away from the devisive BS that has marked the approach of the right for the past 8 years — lets not pretend the right did spend all that time attacking anyone who opposed them.

Posted by: Russ at November 6, 2008 11:49 AM
Comment #269694

sav

thanks for the history lesson. maybe i should have gone into more detail…oh well. it will still be interesting to see how this plays out.

Posted by: dbs at November 6, 2008 11:58 AM
Comment #269695

Allow me a comment from the heart.What a dignity in John McCain’s recession speech ! He definitely is a man of great distinction. He dedicated his whole life to his country and showed us that age didn’t alter his commitment. Respect for his fairplay in his Recession Speech.He is one of all those who contribute to what makes the greatness of America.

Posted by: Charlette at November 6, 2008 12:17 PM
Comment #269706

I’m a bit befuddled by anyone who heard or read the speech by Obama and doesn’t at least consider the fact that, while he may not be able to accomplish much as it’s a big government, the ideas presented in that speech were dead on. America, the whole world, has suffered at the hands of the new Republicans — neocon, religious-right, warmongers.

Please remember — if you’ve been a stout Republican for more than 15 years, the R you checked on your ballot Tuesday is not the same R you checked in the early 90s. McCain, had he been elected, if he had wisely chosen to drop the dog pound currently heading the party and select some true Republicans as his cabinet and advisers, he may have made a decent president and might have gotten the country back on track.

As it was, his plans were not to alter the current administration’s desires, and we were looking at 4 more years of America falling apart at the whims of greed and religious fervor. Happily, America stood up and said “Enough.”

By merely electing Obama, we’ve created goodwill towards America again. If he can continue to lead instead of divide, he’ll be a better president than McCain.

As far as the Supreme Court goes, it’ll be the same as it ever was — deciding most cases 5-4.

Posted by: Thomas R at November 6, 2008 1:12 PM
Comment #269736

The BHO campaign hasn’t ended at all. It will continue for the next four years with David Axelrod expected to go to the White House. I guess they have money left over, and have to do somethign. Of everything that happened in the last week, the funniest to me was seeing D A on one of the Sunday morning shows with poorly applied makeup. Talk about putting lipstick on something.

Ayers wife, Bernadine Dohrn, would be more likely to be appointed to the SCOTUS than her husband, but I can’t see her getting past the Senate.

Posted by: ohrealy at November 6, 2008 4:53 PM
Comment #269743

I’m beginning to wonder, is there a “Republican School of Overblown Delusional Rhetorical Propaganda” that is required before one can claim “membership” in their club?

Let’s examine the most important aspect of this historic campaign.

Barack Obama decisively won the office of President of the United State without taking the majority of votes from our Country’s most populous ethnic group, WHITES.

The power of all people (at least the electorate) has spoken! Barack Obama’s win epitomizes the very essence of Democracy.

You Republicans continue to spout your delusional rhetoric, it did not work in 2008. Let’s hope for the sake of this Country, it won’t work ever again.

It is entirely too soon to determine if Barack Obama is truly the great character his historic victory has proclaimed him to be. However, we as citizens have the assurance that he will not even approach the fascist, terrorist, evil character of the outgoing White House resident and his minions.

TEXAS, TAKE BACK YOUR VILLAGE IDIOT! And please do not send us anymore!

Posted by: Kim-Sue at November 6, 2008 5:27 PM
Comment #269749

There will be no Republican attempt to filibuster Obama nominees. It is not in their nature, and they don’t have the votes anyway. Democrats are going to be only 1 or 2 votes shy of cloture, and you can bet there are more than enough Republicans that will vote with the Dems to close off debate: McCain for sure, Specter definitely, and other RINO’s. Bottom line, Obama will get whomever he wants on the courts, and he is likely to pick from left field, not center. If I end up wrong, I’ll be the first to admit it.

Posted by: Mike Andreola Sr. at November 6, 2008 5:57 PM
Comment #269750

Kim-Sue writes in the same comment the following:

I’m beginning to wonder, is there a “Republican School of Overblown Delusional Rhetorical Propaganda” that is required before one can claim “membership” in their club?


And then concludes with this gem of restrained nuance:

We as citizens have the assurance that he [Obama] will not even approach the fascist, terrorist, evil character of the outgoing White House resident and his minions.

TEXAS, TAKE BACK YOUR VILLAGE IDIOT! And please do not send us anymore!

Does anybody else find this funny? Sad, but funny?

Posted by: Michael Andreola Sr. at November 6, 2008 6:04 PM
Comment #269751

Michael

“Does anybody else find this funny? Sad, but funny?”

lets not leave out ironic.

Posted by: dbs at November 6, 2008 6:10 PM
Comment #269756

Michael,

Jealous? Some rhetoric has that sting of truth associated with it. Or were you not paying attention to the lastest presidential election results?

Posted by: Kim-Sue at November 6, 2008 6:48 PM
Comment #269760
Senator McCain gave a fairly typical Republican answer. He believes that the President has a right to appoint justices who reflect his philosophy and that the Senate’s role is to confirm based on qualifications, not ideology. ——- As President, he would appoint judges based on strict adherence to the Constitution, judges who would “apply” law, not “make” law from the bench.

I am sure President Obama will also appoint Supreme Court Justices who reflect his philosophy, so what is your complaint? Is it that for at least the next 4 years, a non-right wing advocate will have an opportunity to be appointed?

As for the second part of your statement: The purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution (see Marbury v. Madison), the laws were already applied in the previous courts. The Supreme Court intent is to make sure of the constitutionality of the previous rulings in the lower courts and to alter the rulings if appropriate.

All of Bill Clinton’s Supreme Court appointments are avowed and intractable defenders of Roe v. Wade, for example. And we can expect the same from a President Obama, there can be no doubt.

There is also a very important concept in Constitutional law called “precedence”. Evidently you are the one that would like a more activist court. Also see your previous statement above.

Do you not see the hypocrisy of your statements? You are condemning Obama for potentially doing what the Republican Presidents been doing for sometime.

Posted by: Cube at November 6, 2008 7:12 PM
Comment #269763
Of all the horrors of an impending Obama administration, I find it most troubling that the power to appoint these judges and justices will be in the hands of a man who apparently disdains the rule of law and the very Constitution that he will swear to preserve, protect, and defend.
Everyone in Congress and the other branches of government (including the Supreme Court) have violated their oaths to uphold the Constitution and laws of the land.

They are all hypocrites.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 6, 2008 7:18 PM
Comment #269765

Cube, I am not condemning Obama for the appointments to the courts that he is going to make. I assume they will be people with whom I will disagree, but that’s not the point. The point I intended to make was that I was surprised how little attention this issue received in the campaign and that I believe it could have been a helpful issue for McCain to focus voters’ attention on what Obama’s judicial “philosophy” (empathic) would be and his view of the Constitution (“fundamentally flawed”).

As to Roe v. Wade, if you mean to imply that “precedence” should prevent the Supreme Court from correcting past wrong decisions, you are sorely mistaken. If that were the case, some of the most egregious decisions would have never been overturned, like Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson. Supreme Court is not bound by precedent in Constitutional cases, but they do tend to observe stare decisis (let the decision stand)and, as such, are reluctant to overturn prior rulings on a whim, but have done so and will do so again when the weight of the matter demands it. I, as would many Americans, believe this to be case with Roe, but your side won, and that isn’t going to happen for a generation or more, if at all. To the victor goes the spoils. As McCain said in debate 3, “elections have consequences.”

Why is the left still so angry? You guys got your dream guy elected, quite handily. Ligthen up and enjoy it.

Posted by: Mike Andreola Sr. at November 6, 2008 7:29 PM
Comment #269768

It may have been “talked” about little — but most voters that keep up with politic`s where well aware of it.
And to be honest -If 2 leaned right judges had been close to retiring — I would have most likely supported McCain - UNTIL he started the rove type campaign [or picked palin] —either one of those would have lost my support. I am sick to death of the tear them down type of politic`s
_—Savage

Posted by: A Savage at November 6, 2008 7:58 PM
Comment #269770

“Why is the left still so angry? You guys got your dream guy elected, quite handily. Lighten up and enjoy it.” - Mike Andreola Sr

You’re assuming a president-elect is going to act a certain way as president and criticizing him for it. A Democrat will likely populate available SCOTUS seats with left-leaning judges - same thing a Republican would do with right-leaning judges. How far right or left? Doesn’t matter so much as long as there’s some semblance of balance. The judges have their ideals, same as everyone else, but they also have a job. Despite that both “sides” feel “activist judges” will overturn this or that ruling, it’s not that simple.

And some other poster said all Democrats want to keep Roe v Wade. The principle of Roe v Wade, that abortion cannot be federally mandated one way or the other, sits fine with me because I believe in personal freedoms. Not the right to walk in the street, but the right to have a huge personal situation to deal with and not have someone tell me I have to do it THIS way. Right or left or center, I’m guessing we ALL want fewer abortions. Treating people like humans and making real sex education and birth control available to teens is a great start.

The truth is, Obama is an unknown, but he speaks to this nation’s needs. If he can back his words, including those that echoed Kennedy’s “Ask what you can do for your country”, he’ll be a great leader.

I would’ve voted McCain in 2000, but not in 04 and 08. The Republican party needs to get back to what it’s good at: small government, lower taxes, smart defense. The last 8 years, and if anyone disagrees they’ve only just tuned into the planet Earth, have been disastrous for the world because of this administration.

Posted by: Thomas R at November 6, 2008 8:03 PM
Comment #269772

I forgot to add “As to Roe v. Wade”
guess what — abortions where going on before then — and the poor where dieing in back alleys while the well to-do where going to states that allowed it. A friend of my mother died that way.
The same people that think that its a baby at conception are the same people that think birth control and sex ed is evil because they believe their god tells them so.
And the truly sad scary part —is once the baby is born — if the mother needs help - they feel the state should turn its back. That way the poor lady has to come to the churches so they get their shot at brain washing them like they do their own kids.
—Savage

Posted by: A Savage at November 6, 2008 8:10 PM
Comment #269797

Andreola: There will be no Republican attempt to filibuster Obama nominees. It is not in their nature, and they don’t have the votes anyway. Democrats are going to be only 1 or 2 votes shy of cloture,

Oh, please. You’re trying to tell me that if the only way the Repugs have to stop an objectionable, activist, pro-abortion judicial nominee is filibuster, they’ll let it sail right through? Don’t be ridiculous. McConnell almost lost his seat this time to a no-name; he’ll lose next time for sure if he lets them slip any whack-job lefty judges past the goalie.

You’re wrong about not having the votes, by the way, especially since the Dims are (rightly so) about to throw Lieberman under the bus for campaigning with McCain. By my count the Dims are at least 3, maybe 4 votes shy of a supermajority. I guarantee the Repugs will filibuster that. Heck, McConnell has been the biggest filibuster organizer in history since they lost the Senate majority in 2006. Don’t try to tell me he’ll stop short on judicial nominees because “it’s not in their nature”. LOL

Andreola: and you can bet there are more than enough Republicans that will vote with the Dems to close off debate: McCain for sure, Specter definitely, and other RINO’s. Bottom line, Obama will get whomever he wants on the courts, and he is likely to pick from left field, not center.

No, not McCain. Specter maybe. No other Repugs who have any sizable social conservative constituencies will.

Andreola: If I end up wrong, I’ll be the first to admit it.

OK, I’ll be the first to remind you.

Andreola: The point I intended to make was that I was surprised how little attention this issue received in the campaign

Probably it receives so little attention is because it kind of goes with the territory and most people with at least a smattering of civics education realize appointing judges is one of the major executive branch functions. It comes down to whether you think the presidential candidate has good judgment. I know you question Obama’s judgment or you wouldn’t have fired off this piece. But I think Obama has shown far better judgment than McCain, and though I don’t agree with Obama on some of his policy positions and will probably disagree with some of his judicial nominees, I trust his judgment more than I do the rigid ideologues McCain and Palin.

Posted by: EJN at November 6, 2008 11:12 PM
Comment #269812

Yeah Russ, some people. I don’t understand what you mean with the double question marks. Are you saying it’s not true or are you saying those people aren’t worthy enough to have gotten along fine?

You can go into attacks from the right but I can bring up 5 from the left to your every 1. You brought up Iraq, which most Dems voted for, you guys undermined this country on that every step of the way. They voted for it and then turned around and used it for political gain. To me thats just as despicable as what you guys think satan’s brother Bush did.

But yeah, lets all just work together and get along, now that the liberals have all the power. Now would seem to be a good time to stop all this “devisive BS”.

But you’re right McCain’s concession speech was nice. I knew I’d never have to look at that turd politician again, so I guess our reasons were different. How much you want to bet that he will be the “maverick” in the media again real soon?

Posted by: andy at November 7, 2008 3:20 AM
Comment #269823

andy,

Most Democrats were unaware that the Iraq stupidity was started on a lie. War hawks we are not…but, we do believe in the defense of our country. No one turned on anyone until the truth finally began to surface.

For believing in honesty and honor, Democrats were maligned with terms like ‘traitor’, ‘unAmerican”, ‘cowardly’, and others.

You are right…feel good, cross aisle cooperation will not be easy, but there is little choice in the matter…without it our nation will continue to flounder.

That cooperation will start when we hear someone over there say that we, who believe in honor, are not traitors, and that we did not turn our backs on our beloved country…

Posted by: Marysdude at November 7, 2008 9:44 AM
Comment #269828

Marysdude,
I have to disagree with this line “Most Democrats were unaware that the Iraq stupidity was started on a lie. “
it was over 900 lies —not just one
Great little video here about it
http://www.mydamnchannel.com/Harry_Shearer/Music_Videos/935Lies_687.aspx

Posted by: A Savage at November 7, 2008 10:08 AM
Comment #269852

Our attacking Iraq was something politicians were for, still being in heat from the Afghanistan war, and figuring the American people were behind it. I recall that pretty much the entire world was against our going into Iraq, but our politicans, Democrats and Republicans, moved forward in that now-famous Bush unilateralism.

You may recall protests of thousands in various American cities before we ever landed in Iraq. Republicans and Democrats both participated in those.

If you ask who drove us into Iraq, it was Washington D.C., not the will of the American people, and it’s exactly THAT kind of disconnect we’re hoping to avoid in the next 4, 8, 80 years.

Posted by: Thomas R at November 7, 2008 12:07 PM
Comment #269866

Yeah, but it still begs the question…will those on the right ever admit, out loud and in a serious vein that those who voiced opinions against the war and who found fault with the charlatans who caused our national embarrassment, and who spoke against those whom are responsible for countless deaths, were actually not traitors, but were as patriotic as the military who were sent into that dishonorable mess?

Posted by: Marysdude at November 7, 2008 12:51 PM
Comment #269871

I imagine some on the right do, and some on the left as well. The problem, I find, with Watchblog and many people is the need to generalize the separation. Most people are moderate, which in practice means they have an opinion but they take things on a case-by-case basis. People who post on the Internet are often taking advantage of their anonymity (full name given or not) and say things to get a rise, a debate, or simply have a knee-jerk reaction to something.

People have a wide range of different views. It’s detrimental to any debate to categorize someone by how they voted. Our country’s silly election process effectively allows for two parties so we get tagged as “crazy librul” or “neocon”, when in fact most are not even close to either. I don’t want to steal the fun of Watchblog away — it can be like a reality TV show it’s so inanely absorbing. Just stating the obvious.

This being said, one can no longer say that “politicians are all the same” and “the blanks are as bad as the blanks”. We, as a planet, have seen what a poor selection in leadership can do. I truly hope we don’t make that mistake again and when the pendulum of American opinion sways once more to the right of center, that the Republican party has gotten its dogs back in their kennels.

Posted by: Thomas R at November 7, 2008 1:14 PM
Comment #269872

Marysdude,

Why is the left so desparate for approval from a right wing that they so vehemently despise? Why do you care if conservatives “admit” that you are “as patriotic as the military … “? What does it mean to be patriotic? Is it an emotion? A value system? I cannot know what is in someone else’s heart.

I am always amazed by opponents of the war, when their argument against the war is more about themselves. It is about whether the right wing is questioning their patriotism. Isn’t anybody else sick of this tired line of defense?

Please point out to me one instance where a supporter of the war specifically said that any war critic is not patriotic. I have never heard anyone on the right accuse anyone on the left of being unpatriotic because they opposed the war.

However, if someone on the left says “God dxxx America” and “US of KKKA” I think it would be fair to suggest that such a person doesn’t like America very much…

Only thing I can think is that because some of us on the right are not convinced by your arguments against the war and continue to voice our support for it, you guys are so angry that we haven’t changed our mind. And you take our refusal to agree with you as an affront to your patriotism.

I have friends and acquaintances on the right and left who opposed the Iraq war for various reasons, many of them well thought and well expressed. If they believe the war was unjust and unjustly fought, who am I to question their patriotism because of that? But am I not free to disagree with them nonetheless, and to voice my disagreement?

Many on the left say that every argument the right puts forth is nothing but hatred and anger and name-calling. Then the left spews hatred and anger and name-calling and calls it enlightened discourse.


Posted by: Mike Andreola Sr. at November 7, 2008 1:16 PM
Comment #269920

Well said, Mike. I am amazed to see such remarks such as those you’re referring to.

Yeah, but it still begs the question…will those on the right ever admit, out loud and in a serious vein that those who voiced opinions against the war and who found fault with the charlatans who caused our national embarrassment, and who spoke against those whom are responsible for countless deaths, were actually not traitors, but were as patriotic as the military who were sent into that dishonorable mess?

While casually tossing out words like “charlatans” and “dishonorable,” which the left demands we meekly accept as adequate for characterizing our people and positions, they demand apologies for charges against them that were never made.

This question could also be asked: Will those on the LEFT ever admit, out loud and in a serious vein that those who voiced opinions FOR the war could do so for reasons as honorable as they believe their own to be?

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at November 7, 2008 9:37 PM
Comment #269924

>This question could also be asked: Will those on the LEFT ever admit, out loud and in a serious vein that those who voiced opinions FOR the war could do so for reasons as honorable as they believe their own to be?
Posted by: Loyal Opposition at November 7, 2008 09:37 PM

LO,

Before the extent of the pre-war fabrications were publicly known, yes.

Many of us on the left suspected that we went there as revenge for Saddam’s threats against BushI, Some of us suspected that we were there for the oil. But most of us knew it was NOT because Saddam was a direct threat to the USA. That you all didn’t think that way was understandable…but…

Eventually everyone was aware that the only reasonable explanations led to invasion for less than honorable motive. From that moment ‘til now, even with the full knowledge of leadership gone wrong, it is still not admitted by most on the right, and especially those on the right here at WatchBlog.

Kind of reminds me of ‘The Fonz’, when he knew he was wrong, he could not force himself to commit to the word, and would stutter, ‘r, r, ro, ro’, but never get it out.

The difference, of course, is that The Fonz, was comedic nonsense…but this stupidity in Iraq has killed, and maimed many, many thousands of people, both American, and Iraqi, for dishonorable reasons…and that is not comedic at all.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 7, 2008 10:09 PM
Comment #269928

Mike Andreola Sr.,

Despise you? Hardly. In fact I mostly admire anyone who thinks.

But, to answer your question about where we got the word traitor from…here at WatchBlog, on Faux News, listening to Brash Lamebrain, and that Coulter woman, et al…oh, so many places…even my President inferred it. Your VEEP nominee used some pretty ugly words pointed this way too. The thing is, we’ve become gun-shy about this thing. Just pointing out that most of the reasons for joining combat in Iraq were fallacious has caused us to suffer some serious ugliness. And ugliness begets ugliness I’m afraid…perhaps in time…but unlikely until we hear a little backtracking from the right.

Think about it this way…many think the US should not sit down at the ‘table’ with Iran’s leadership until we get some concessions…

Posted by: Marysdude at November 7, 2008 10:25 PM
Comment #269931

Marysdude, the debate over the run-up to the war is something that’s been hotly debated for so many years now that it seems just tiresome to go over all that yet again.

You seem convinced that it was all deliberate and premeditated “fabrication” on the part of Bush, both Clintons, Joe Biden, Dick Cheney, and the Clinton-appointed head of the CIA. So I won’t even bother to try and change your mind.

However, you’re flat wrong when you say:

Eventually everyone was aware that the only reasonable explanations led to invasion for less than honorable motive.

You do not speak for “everyone.” There are millions who don’t agree with you, and it’s grossly unfair to accuse all of us of being less than honorable when you yourself demand to have your patriotism acknowledged. You should try to afford the same respect to the views of others that you demand for yours.

I’m always surprised when members of the left, who pride themselves on “nuance” and an ability to see shades of gray instead of black and white take the opposite view when confronted with any opinions held by conservatives. Is it possible to disagree about something without setting up one’s position as lily-white and pure and the opposing view as the work of dishonorable charlatans? Sometimes a simple “I disagree” will suffice.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at November 7, 2008 10:42 PM
Comment #269937

LO,

I disagree…

Posted by: Marysdude at November 7, 2008 11:30 PM
Comment #269966

“As President, he would appoint judges based on strict adherence to the Constitution, judges who would “apply” law, not “make” law from the bench.”

This is a litmus test. Republicans say this all the time. But what they mean is that the judge be someone on the Right. Scalia, for instance, does not “apply” the law when it interferes with his Rightist philosophy.

What law did this Republican Supreme Court “apply” when it voted for Bush in Bush vs. Gore?

Posted by: Paul Siegel at November 8, 2008 2:06 PM
Comment #270012

Kim Sue said: “TEXAS, TAKE BACK YOUR VILLAGE IDIOT!”

Are you kidding? We don’t want Bush back. Well, I guess we have to take him back, since he owns land here. But, we will be very happy if he never strays beyond his fence lines, and that goes for independent, democrat, and a large number of republican voters here in Texas as well.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 9, 2008 9:54 AM
Comment #270041

Marysdude -

Look at Mike’s statement: “I have never heard anyone on the right accuse anyone on the left of being unpatriotic because they opposed the war.”

Don’t you see a common thread here with L.O. who seems to think we invaded Iraq with good reason?

Yes, I think you do see the common thread - but for the benefit of those who don’t see it…THEY WEREN’T PAYING ATTENTION.

‘Course, it’s sorta hard to pay attention when all some people see is Faux News, the New York Post, the Washington Moonie-Times, and believe it when they are told that everything that non-neo-con papers say is lies….

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at November 9, 2008 11:57 PM
Comment #270052

No, Glenn Contrarian, you are the one not paying attention.

If some nutcase says you are not patriotic because you didn’t support the war, I am sorry. I hope your feelings can be healed now that your man and your party have complete control of the government. But again, what neo-con (damn those devils) commentator or political figure of any national stature, even remote, said opponents of the war are not patriotic. Please name who, what, and when.

Talk about not paying attention. One can argue that the Iraq war was justified on the following grounds:

Everyone in the world thought Saddam had WMD. Given the fact that he had used them in the past, that was not hard to believe.

Saddam was an aider and abettor of terrorists, whom he harbored within his borders. Sweethearts like Abu Nidal, Carlos the Jackal, etc. He paid the families of suicide bombers who killed Israelis.

Saddam was a murderous, torturing tyrant.

Saddam violated repeatedly the terms of the cease-fire from the first gulf war.

We could go over all this ground again in detail, and frankly I wouldn’t mind the argument, but it is kind of moot at this point.

What is important is that you folks are so quick to demonize those who disagree with you, while at the same time demanding that we dare not even take issue with your arguments.

People who hate America are by definition not patriotic. Some on the angry left hate America. Therfore some, not all, on the angry left are not patriotic. I should think it would be an insult to them to say they are patriotic.

Some war opponents hate America. Therfore, some, not all, war opponents are not patriotic. How hard is this?

Posted by: Mike Andreola Sr. at November 10, 2008 8:58 AM
Comment #270055

Mike
You made contrainians point by stating
Some on the angry left hate America
I disagree with your preposition that ANY on the ANGRY left HATE AMERICA — altho they HATE WHAT IS BEING DONE IN AMERICA’s NAME
Those that truely HATE AMERICA will not be participating in America’s political process at all
Therefore if anyone HATES AMERICA they are not part of the “angry left” (as YOU label them) but part of something else, outside of the American Political System.
For those on the left that participate — you may not agree with their vision of a “good America” - but it is out of their love and their definition of what is required for a “good America” that they even get involved.

I call BS on this stuff you present
This is where the “patriotic right” still don’t get it.

You equate criticizing those things America does wrong with “hates America”

If we on the “angry left” — (a very vague definition at best) “hated America” we would not care one whit — we do care, we want a BETTER AMERICA
we want an America that LIVES UP TO THE IDEALS set by the founding fathers and the constitution.
Whenever we see AMERICA take a short-cut, stomp on the constitution (for expediency) — repress those who disagree or dissent, we criticize because we LOVE AMERICA.

There are many people that hate America — (and with good reason if you were to put yourself in THEIR shoes) — but those of us who dissent and criticize realize that the AMERICA that “they” hate is NOT the AMERICA that WE LOVE — it is an America that may have gone astray, that has done some wrong things (some may have been well-intended but there are also plenty that were not done with any good intentions at all) —
In our opinion — a True Patriot would be FURIOUS at some of the things being done in the world in OUR NAME (As Americans)
THOSE ATROCITIES DO NOT REPRESENT WHAT AMERICA STANDS FOR, AND IT IS A VIOLATION OF WHO WE ARE THAT WE ALLOW THEM TO BE DONE IN OUR NAMES.

And if you are unaware of what some of these things are and have been — then you definately have not been paying attention.

Posted by: Russ at November 10, 2008 9:52 AM
Comment #270080

Mike -

Saddam was an aider and abettor of terrorists, whom he harbored within his borders. Sweethearts like Abu Nidal, Carlos the Jackal, etc. He paid the families of suicide bombers who killed Israelis.

Abu Nidal…who most believe were killed on Saddam’s orders in 2002, the year before we invaded?

Carlos the Jackal…who was ‘conditionally’ supported by Iraq BEFORE Saddam took power, but was REFUSED aid by Saddam in 1985 when he was expelled from Hungary in 1985 has been in prison in France since 1994? There’s some indication that Saddam had contact with C-the-J in 1975…but Saddam wasn’t in charge of Iraq then. Saddam may have contacted C-the-J in 1990…but again, where has Carlos been since 1994? In a French jail.

BUT ALL OF THIS ABOUT C-THE-J is a non-sequitur, because the PROPER action was that taken against Qaddafi in Libya for harboring the Pan Am/Lockerbie bombers. Did we need to invade Libya for OBVIOUSLY harboring terrorists? No? Then we can’t use the UNPROVED SUSPICION of Iraq harboring terrorist to justify an invasion there.

And when it comes to Saddam paying the families of suicide bombers - well, in that case WE SHOULD BE INVADING SAUDI ARABIA!

Saddam was a murderous, torturing tyrant.

And your point is…what? Remember Idi Amin? He was allowed to go into exile and his country’s regime was changed WITHOUT invasion, WITHOUT thousands of America’s finest needlessly dying, WITHOUT wasting a half-trillion dollars of taxpayer money, WITHOUT tens of thousands of Ugandans dying in an invasion. Sure, it was an injustice to allow Idi Amin to live…but it would have been a greater injustice to invade Uganda…and the greater injustice WAS DONE to Iraq and the American people.

Saddam violated repeatedly the terms of the cease-fire from the first gulf war.

So that makes it okay for us to violate the Geneva Convention and unilaterally start an unprovoked aggressive war? One wrong does not justify a greater wrong.

Everyone in the world thought Saddam had WMD. Given the fact that he had used them in the past, that was not hard to believe.

Never mind that the CIA told Bush and co. that the intel was suspect at best? Never mind that Cheney had to start his OWN intel agency in order to get ‘intel’ that agreed with what ‘the world’ believed? NEVER MIND that the president pro-tempore at the time - Dick Armey - was against the war and only agreed to it after Cheney LIED to him about Iraq having ‘suitcase nukes’?

Read just how far Bush and Cheney went to justify the war:

According to former Bush officials, all defence and intelligence sources, senior administration figures created a shadow agency of Pentagon analysts staffed mainly by ideological amateurs to compete with the CIA and its military counterpart, the Defence Intelligence Agency.

The agency, called the Office of Special Plans (OSP), was set up by the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to second-guess CIA information and operated under the patronage of hardline conservatives in the top rungs of the administration, the Pentagon and at the White House, including Vice-President Dick Cheney.

The ideologically driven network functioned like a shadow government, much of it off the official payroll and beyond congressional oversight. But it proved powerful enough to prevail in a struggle with the State Department and the CIA by establishing a justification for war.

Mr Tenet has officially taken responsibility for the president’s unsubstantiated claim in January that Saddam Hussein’s regime had been trying to buy uranium in Africa, but he also said his agency was under pressure to justify a war that the administration had already decided on.

Look, Mike - you don’t WANT to believe you personally could be wrong about Bush’s motives and justification for invading Iraq…but do you really think that neo-cons and Republicans are ‘guided by God’ (as Bush thought he was), that they are immune to the incendiary combination of hubris, ignorance, and religious fervor? I’m sorry, Mike, but the facts are against you.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at November 10, 2008 12:00 PM
Comment #270143

Glenn C., you are a good debater and make some good points. Thanks for making me think (and I’m not being sarcastic).

There are several concessions that I will make to your argument. One is that there were other worse sponsors of terrorism than Saddam. Another is that there were and are other tyrannical regimes that violate human rights.

However, the case of Iraq presented a unique alignment of several factors that, combined together, made a compelling case that could be used to justify military action to take down the regime:

—the sponsorship and support of terrorism.
—the unique history of possession and actual use of WMD to kill thousands of people.
—the outspoken animosity for the United States and our interests/allies
—the history of naked aggression against a neighboring country.
—the previous war with the United States and a large coalition, a war which had been suspended per Saddam complying with certain agreements that he had made.

On the last point, you said:

So that makes it okay for us to violate the Geneva Convention and unilaterally start an unprovoked aggressive war? One wrong does not justify a greater wrong.

I disagree. We did not unilaterally start an unprovoked aggressive war. Unilaterally means “one.” We had a major ally, Great Britain; therefore, it wasn’t unilteral. Nor did we “start” a war. We continued with a war that had been waged in 1991, of which hostilities were suspended because Saddam agreed to certain conditions. Having violated those conditions, he was legitimately subject to further hostilities.

To my mind, one could perhaps argue that there are a lot of tyrannical regimes that it would be just to overthrow. But there are prudential reasons why the US cannot go to war with all of them. Heck, even Senator Obama during the last debate said that he could see a justification for military action against abusive regimes purely for humanitarian reasons. Surely Saddam would have qualified on that score alone. However, just because we cannot do everything, doesn’t mean we should do nothing. Again, Saddam’s Iraq presented a unique combination of several factors (above) that altogether made a compelling case for war. No other state sponsor of terrorism or tyrannical regime around the world equalled that record.

As to the WMD issue and the alleged cooking of intelligence, I don’t know what to tell you. All of the world’s intelligence agencies thought Saddam had WMD, as did the Clinton administration when it was in office. I am not convinced that he didn’t have them, either. Could he have shuttled the stockpiles off to Syria, as some suspect, in the runup to the war? He certainly had plenty of time. Moreover, we did take large amounts of enriched uranium out of Iraq (sorry Joe Wilson), and we know Saddam was eager to resume a nuclear weapons program.

The most I could concede is that Bush’s position (and the world’s) on Iraq and WMD was mistaken, but that’s not the same as a deliberate lie.

And the question that keeps nagging me is, why? For those who think Bush made stuff up to justify invading Iraq, why did he do it? What gain did it get him? Historically low approval ratings? To plunder Iraq’s oil? But we are letting them keep it. To own their country? But we are giving it back to them to govern. In days gone by, when one nation conquered another, the one that won took what it wanted from the loser. (Thus “to the victor goes the spoils.”) The USA takes nothing, pays to rebuild the infrastructure of the nation it conquered, and gives the whole thing back, albeit under new—and more respectful of human rights—management.

Could it be in the long march of history, that George W. Bush will be lauded for leading the effort to liberate more then 50 million people, most of whom are Muslims and don’t care much for the United States?

Posted by: Mike Andreola Sr. at November 11, 2008 1:07 PM
Comment #270166
Could it be in the long march of history, that George W. Bush will be lauded for leading the effort to liberate more then 50 million people, most of whom are Muslims and don’t care much for the United States?


Hardly! He will be more known for the deaths of thousands…Iraqui along with our military, and all because “God talked to him”, and he needed to create his own legend.
I hope he goes mad trying to deal with the ultimate results.

Posted by: janedoe at November 11, 2008 4:28 PM
Comment #270176

Paul S.,

You wrote:

What law did this Republican Supreme Court “apply” when it voted for Bush in Bush vs. Gore?

What law? The Constitution of the United States. Have you ever read the decision, and the dissents, in Bush v. Gore? They aren’t that hard to understand. I would suggest reading it, rather than relying on the media’s summary of it. It was a quite clear-cut application of equal protection of the laws, a concept enshrined in the Constitution; and an acknolwedgement of the fact that the process of selecting presidential electors falls under the purview, acording to the Constitution, of the legislature of the states.

You call it the “Republican” Supreme Court. It is true that the five justices who voted for the majority opinion were chosen by Republican presidents; however, isn’t it interesting that all 3 justices appointed by Democrat presidents dissented, while the 4th dissenting vote came from David Souter, WHO WAS APPOINTED BY GEORGE H. W. BUSH, A REPUBLICAN? This bolsters my point that Democrat appointments to the court can be relied upon more to vote the liberal line than Republican appointed justics can be relied upon to vote conservative. It is no coincidence that the “swing” justices (those who sometimes vote with the liberals, sometimes with the conservatives) have been Sandra Day O’Connor, now retired, and Anthony Kennedy, both appointed by Reagan. That’s in addition to Souter (as mentioned above), a reliably liberal vote appointed by a Republican. The three Democrat appointed justices (one by JFK, the other two by Clinton) are reliably liberal votes. I stand by my prediction that Obama’s appointees will not stray from the liberal line and they will be easily confirmed by the Senate.

Posted by: Mike Andreola Sr. at November 11, 2008 10:00 PM
Comment #270195

mike


“The three Democrat appointed justices (one by JFK, the other two by Clinton)”

i agree with your take on bush v gore, but i checked and the oldest serving justice i could find was i believe appointed by nixon. am i misunderstanding something ?

Posted by: dbs at November 12, 2008 10:46 AM
Comment #270201

You are right, dbs. I obviously had a brain malfuncion there (not the first or last). Stevens was appointed by Gerald Ford after he assumed the Presidency. Thus my main point is even more strongly support. Of the four votes against Bush in Bush v. Gore, two were appointed by Republican Presidents. Hence, Republican appointed Supreme Court justices tend to be decide cases in a less reliably ideological and/or partisan manner than Democrat appointees.

Posted by: Mike Andreola Sr. at November 12, 2008 12:07 PM
Post a comment