Before we bleeding hearts rejoice that our Chosen One will anoint a new Supreme Court justice this year, we ought to remember that David Souter was nominated by... LBJ, right? Uh, Carter? Clinton, yeah, Clinton, fo-sho. What's that, you say? Twas Daddy Bush?
No, but seriously. Souter's a liberal. He votes with Baby Ruth Ginsburg, Something Kennedy, Stevie Breyer, and Pope John Paul Stevens most the time, right? Helps us America-haters keep on killin' babies and burnin' flags. He's a reliable pot-smokin' hugger of trees and would run over his own mother, in a Prius of course, before displacing a single spotted owl. Doesn't sound like a Bush guy to me.
Well, you can Google it as well as I. Bush The Elder put Souter on the court. What's more, Anthony Kennedy's turning out to be the so-called swing vote on many cases, and Reagan's responsible for him.
There's an old song, goes something like this: "You can't always get / What you want" and although it's not officially the theme song of SC nominations, you could do worse.
So let's not just assume BHO will get it right and find a reasonable left-of-center woman to replace Souter. He's a constitutional law prof by trade, our president is, so he'll at least try, which should be enough. 'Cause if you try sometimes, people, you just might find, maybe, you get what you need.
As a balance Souter filled the position that the court needed as a liberal. He was the replacement for Justice Brennan who often wrote desicions for the majority during the Warren Era. Ironically, he was selected by Eisenhower (another Republican president).
ReplyDeleteBalance is what the court needs as it will be called on the review the actions of this Congress and President. The Supreme Court really needs to have both sides of country represented to truly protest the rights of the people over the state.
Sorry...that was supposed to be protect not protest...stupid spellcheck!
ReplyDeleteI do hate spillcheck.
ReplyDeleteIf a balanced court is what you want, Andy, we're set for a while. I would prefer that the justices vote their conscience and their independent, informed interpretation of the Constitution. But our system encourages Presidents to pick partisan hacks, which produces legal abominations such as Gore v. Bush. And this from me, a hopeless idealist trying to fit into a pragmatic box. Ouch ouch hey!