So many of the important decisions of the United States Supreme Court are decided by a single vote.
Often that vote is Anthony Kennedy. Not a bad single vote to have, considering the alternatives.
What if Kennedy’s single vote didn’t matter anymore because Kennedy or one of the four solidly conservative members of the Court retired, became ill, or died, and was replaced by an Obama nominee?
Food for thought: Justices Scalia and Kennedy each were born in 1936.
Obama would have the opportunity to shape the Court for a generation, not just to replace liberal Justices with other liberal Justices.
CBS News’ Jeff Greenfield refers to this as The (Possible) Mother of All Battles
Who do you want Chairing the Senate Judiciary Committee in such event, Pat Leahy (D-VT) or Jeff Sessions (R-AL)?
Assuming Democrats retain control of the Senate, and Leahy is Chair, do you want Democrats to have to flip just 2-3 Republican Senators, or 6-7, in order to break a filibuster?
It is going to take years to undo the Obama economic disaster, but it can be accomplished through Congressional elections every two years, and particularly the 2012 presidential election.
But if Obama gets his way in tilting the Court, there would be nothing anyone could do about it for multiple decades.
Given reasonable life expectancies, we will be talking about Justice Sotomayor 20 years from now, and Justice Kagan 30 years from now. Two more in the same mold plus Justice Breyer, and the next presidential election may not matter as to the balance of the Court.
So prepare for The (Possible) Mother of All Battles now.
If this doesn’t motivate you, then nothing will.
——————————————–
Related Posts:
I Am Not The Only One Praying For This
Will Anyone Ask Kagan What The Meaning of “Is” Is?
Sotomayor Threw O’Connor Under The Bus
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Ron Coleman
Comments
"Obama ecomomic disaster" – what planet are you living on
DINORightMarie,
The judiciary power is checked in that the SCOTUS candidates must be nominated by the Executive and approved by the Legislature. (I know — sure is working great!).
See Article III, Section I: judges serve "during good behavior." And these vipers who are bent on dismantling the Constitution lead banal lives and cover their destruction with the language of wood.
I agree, we should be alarmed that the decisions of the SCOTUS break along political lines rather than being the products of conscientious legal scholarship. From the outside looking in, sussing out all those emanations of penumbras seems about as valid as divining the truth by stirring chicken guts. But I've a quibble with this:
"Given reasonable life expectancies, we will be talking about Justice Sotomayor 20 years from now, and Justice Kagan 30 years from now."
This is true "given reasonable life expectancies" but these two lovelies look like short-fused cholesterol bombs. You're right to be concerned that a single illness on the right side of the Court could be a disaster for conservatism. It's obvious that the conservative majority hangs on by a slim thread.
However, the reverse is also true — a single cardial infarction would be an equal, or even greater disaster for the left. Given that a Supreme Court justice can serve for life, installing visibly unhealthy justices would not seem to be the best strategery for creating a long legacy….
Thanks for scaring the pants off me.
One word. Nullification.
Leave a Comment