This should scare the daylights out of anyone with any brains
Columnist Andrew McCarthy gives us what probably is the most important question regarding the upcoming presidential election.
If Mitt wins the nomination, I will enthusiastically
support his candidacy. For my friends who have hesitation on that
score, I’d just ask you to keep four things in mind:
Justice Scalia just turned 78
Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this year
Justice Breyer will be 76 in August
Justice Ginsburg turned 81 about a week ago.
In addition, Justice Ginsburg has Pancreatic Cancer.
Justice Stephens has already said he would retire and is just waiting for Obama to be reelected. The next president could appoint as many as 4 new Justices over next 8 years. This election is about more than ObamaCare Tax.
We wish them all well, of course, but the brute fact is that whoever we elect as president in November is almost certainly going to choose at least one new member of the Supreme Court, in addition to hundreds of other life-tenured federal judges, all of whom will be making momentous decisions about our lives for decades to come.
If you don’t think it matters whether the guy making those calls is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, I think you’re smokin’ something funky.
So for anybody who is thinking of not voting because your favorite didn’t get nominated, or writing in a candidate who can’t win, imagine this:
He sure is an enigma. However, the health care decision debacle is hardly a reason to ignore the importance of a President’s power of appointing justices. If anything, it should make us more leery of future candidates whose major attribute is the ability to dazzle 100 senators with an encyclopedic knowledge of case law.
I say it is time to start striking down candidates, even from Republican Presidents, who refuse to get into the specifics of today’s issue. If they try to dance around these issues, send them packing back to Harvard to lament in the faculty lounge.
History has taught us that having a Republican appoint a justice does not guarantee conservative decisions. This probably has something to do with the fact that most lawyers and law schools are factories for progressive thought - call it selection bias.
However, Democrats are much more successful at packing the court with justices that drink the liberal cool aid. Carlos is correct, the next President will choose at least 2 justices and WILL change the balance of the court. In addition, there will be future decisions to further clarify limitations on the 2nd Amendment in the next 4 years. Count on it.
You think Roberts is a screw up just wait for the 2nd Obama term and if he were to get just one SC appointment in his pocket. Assume the Senate keeps a Democrat majority.
FDR had the SC and Congress rubber stamping his toilet paper for years and we still have many staples of his Presidency in effect today. Stop and think…are you better off today than you were four years ago and will you be any better off four years from now with more liberal legislation rammed down your throat?
As far as Roberts goes…with a Republican president, we have maybe a 50% chance of getting a SC justice that doesn’t suck. With a Democratic president, that number approaches 0%.
Roberts is no enigma, he has been completely compromised by the commie/fascist hybrid in the white house. If you would just take the time to read his “ahh” reasoning behind his decision to end the republic, you would see just how utterly desperate he was to accomplish that task!
We must keep in mind that he also gutted Arizona’s immigration law the week before he ended the republic, an act which was almost totally overshadowed by his treachery with Obamacare…But no less far far leftist of him…
The high court is already firmly in Obama’s camp, they compromised Roberts, reading his Obamacare decision, reveals the machinations of an extrordinarily desperate mind…It was virtually incoherent…
My enigma comment was in reference to the fact that he once had a very conservative voting record up until this year and was thought to have great potential. At one point, it was thought that he would assume Scalia’s role as the next conservative brain trust on the Court. Well, that is now gone after Scalia basically called him a moron in the dissent. Why a man would throw that away is a mystery to me.
I guess you don’t realize the power the government now has to tax you for not buying whatever they want you to.
The mental gymnastics in that opinion were so absurd you have got to be kidding me. That ONE GUY fucked humanity over so bad he gave a blank check to the government to do whatever they want so long as they classify it as a tax.
Well, we can only speculate, however the almost unified explanations of the popular propaganda sources that he was persuaded by intense media pressure, was just as feeble as the incoherent reasoning he penned as justification for killing the republic!
Likely, Roberts, or some family member, has a very dark secret that will now, remain just that…
Just last week I caught FNC’s Megan “whatshername” opining that in the upcoming SCOTUS sessions, Kennedy will again be the unpredictable swing guy of the court, straddling the fense posts between conservatives & the crazies!
The crazies already have the court, Kennedy is not among them…and he never was one of them…If Obama emerges victorious this November, he won’t need any additions to own the majority on the court, he already owns it, regardless, what he will do is stack it…
Republican Pres. don’t always mean conservative justices.
The Earl Warren court presided over some of the most “progressive” periods in SCOTUS history. He was appointed by Eisenhower. Bush HW appointed David Souter, a huge lefty.
Yup. There are no guarantees… except that if obama gets re-elected we will probably experience some very dire straits. And reemember, it will pretty much be a guarantee that that racist Eric Holder will be SCOTUS
Yeah. I REALLY don’t like Romney. But the thought of an Obama 2nd term with no accountability to anyone, declaring horrific EOs and forcing people to take him to court to reverse each and every single one, cooking up more false flag attacks on the BoR, and flooding SCOTUS with more fat butch lesbo communists?
It depends on 2 things: 1) if he gets Ron Paul’s endorsement, and 2) if he is allowed in the debates.
The RP endorsement is not likely to happen since it would hurt Rand’s standing in the party. However, Johnson endorsed RP’s 2008 Presidential candidacy, so it is not out of the realm of possibility. In addition, Paul supporters tout their leader as the most principled man in politics, so it must pull at his heart strings to see Johnson fighting the good fight.
As for the debate, I understand that is the focus of Johnson’s campaign. He is on the ballot in all 50 states, but he still needs to poll in double digits to be considered for the debates.