Something tells me that if the Anointed One wins, they’ll be more Dems in the Senate, and Barry can just get his “Magic 5-4″ in SCOTUS. If Romney wins, maybe the Repubs can get the Senate, but I’m not betting the House on that. But a Romney win MIGHT, repeat MIGHT allow at least someone who has read the Constitution and knows what “Shall Not” means to be Appointed to the bench.
I know, “Slim Chance, ” but when a Ship is Sinking…..
I think you are all underestimating the anti-Obama votes that exist in the country. It is not pro-Romney or pro-Obama voters who are going to make or break this election, it is the anti-Obama vote.
And after that is demonstrated, Romney might just realize that they meant it when they said not just “No” but “HELL NO!” to all that Obama started. I don’t see a Harriet Myers happening with Romney, and there will be no more Borks, because the news is no longer controlled by the press.
Federal judges cannot be fired, their salaries cannot be diminished, etc. blah blah. But they need not be replaced and their jurisdiction is almost all controlled by Congress. I can envision one chief justice and one associate justice holding trials over two boats sailed by ambassadors bumping into each other and no more than that.
No, Romney is likely to appoint either squishy “moderates”, or possibly intelligent, well grounded originalists — about a 50/50 chance in each appointment.
Obama is 100% likely to appoint the most left-wing extremists he can who will happily lie thier way past Senate confirmation, knowing that the en bloc Dem vote + RINOs desperate to prove they are “bipartisan” will confirm them. Traditionally, Repubs have shown unbelievable deference to the President’s appointment choices, regardless of who is president, whilst Dems traditionally view every Republican appointment as a “kill at all cost” operation.
No way in HELL we get a pro-liberty SCOTUS out of another Obama term — EVERY vote will be a solid 5-4 (or even 6-3) anti-liberty “progressive” decision. WORST case under a Romney term is we keep a balanced court, with a moderate as the “swing in the breeze of poll popularity” decisive vote, best case is we get a solid 5 conservatives, keep a moderate or two, ant the left-wingers who think that Constitutional interpretation is a game of Political Twister are a definitive minority.
Is Romney a grat choice? Nope, he’s at best a lukewarm choice. Cluebat — there are realistically only TWO candidates in the race (Magic SuperLibertarian Wookie will not fly in and get 270 electoral votes, sorry). Nobody will be inaugerated in January who wants to reverse direction altogether. One candidate is trying to ram us into Hell as fast as he can, by any means he thinks he can get away with. The other is sometimes wrong-headed, but already wants to reverse our course, albeit only as a “correction”.
I’ll take “Not As Bad” versus either “Not Interested In Liberty” and “Not a Chance in Hell of Winning”, thak you.
This country is poised on the precipise of a REALLY bad situation, where the wrong choice will stack the Final Aribiters of what “is” means for a generation — we will NOT recover if we get 30 years of straight Progressive rulings. When you’re starving to death after a natural disaster, you don’t throw the cold canned generic chili you found in the mud because it is dented, a week past “Best if used by”, high in fat, and not a balanced meal. Not even if it’s a Frioday during Lent and you’re avoiding meat. EAT THE DAMNED CHILI so you don’t die before you get to a healthy meal!
Counter argument: If Romney wins, one or more of the “desirable” justices will retire during his term, and he might appoint a desirable replacement. If Obama wins, one or more of the desirable justices might die during his term, and he probably will appoint undesirable replacements.
Personally, I’ll bank on them staying alive through sheer stubbornness, just so they can “maintain the Court’s balance.”
I just hate “inside baseball”: all my life, we have debated “political science” the process instead of basic principles. This year is worse than most, as we debate the methods of polling over the content of the platforms. Of course, nobody follows their platforms, as they’re now planked only to induce…good polling.
So, while denouncing myself, let me just point out the ultimate polisci. Just a couple of real grabby Court rulings 200 years ago put SCOTUS at the pinnacle of government. All of us have duly worshipped this state of affairs (when its products pleased us), but it ought to be afflicting us with a profound unease.
The framers may have thought that states’ actions, reinforced by sectionalism, would balance overreach by the federal courts. The civil war just plain spoiled that. Sectionalism hardly exists, probably thanks to “media” (including this one); we have “factionalism” instead. The balance has been broken for half of our history. If you have to vote for senator and president based on court picks, your republic has become a potentate, and we are governed by men.
Why no, I am not calling for an Article V convention; why do you ask?
Sounds like guilt talking. NRA or somebody else asked you for money; you feel guilty for letting other people carry the burden of protecting you; you pretend that you would have gotten involved if only the candidates were perfect and they asked you more nicely.