Obama likely to pick moderate justices

I think we can safely say that President-elect Obama will certainly not be placing an ideologue on our high court. I do think we can expect him to place into nomination, someone who recognizes the right to privacy, for all citizens of America. I, also, hope that he would nominate someone who will honor the right to bear arms, but not the right to kill our children. This is a tough issue, but it must be resolved. There are far too many fine minds, here in America, that we can engage, to resolve this issue, to the extent, that our children will be able to grow to adulthood. Stop the bloodshed and stop the fascism, concerning our citizen's right to privacy !! Those are two important issues to consider, but no ideologues !! There are too many already there, thanks to President Bush and the rovian dictates, he followed !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Even Bill Kristol admits many people will be surprised at how Obama will govern from the center. EVEN BILL KRISTOL!!!

Don,
.
You may be right. He may not end up placing an ideologue on the Supreme Court. But don't think for a second he won't try to appoint a left-wing ideologue if he has the chance. Why should we believe that Obama's choices for judicial appointments won't be every bit as left wing as Bill Clinton's? We only need to remember that Bill Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer - both of whom have substantial leftward leanings. Ginsburg was an ACLU lawyer. How much more pseudo-liberal can you get?
.
If an Obama Supreme Court appointee doesn't turn out to be a left-wing ideologue it will only be because the appointee decides to go off in an unpredictable direction. This happens. Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed both Earl Warren and William Brennan to the court, and they turned out to be two of the biggest "liberals" the court has seen. The same is true of Gerald Ford's appointment of John Paul Stevens and George H.W. Bush's appointment of David Souter. Both of them have taken a substantial left turn in more recent years.
.
Fortunately for the sane among us, possible court vacancies during Obama's first term are likely to come from the Court's pseudo-liberal wing. Thus, it is unlikely that any first term Obama appointment will have any significant impact on the makeup of the Court.

Obama is already running for 2012...

He understands that his '08 victory came from moderates that had voted for Bush in '04, and from the republicans that sat out this years election- this likely won't be the case in '12 if he governs from the left.

Obama has never made a decision as a public official that was NOT based on the impacts to the next election cycle..

He will absolutely attempt to appear as moderate or moderate right as he can...

The Supreme Court building is one of my favorites in Washington. I remember a fine afternoon one day when I sat on the steps smoking a cigar and ruining everyone's pictures.
I have to laugh at John W's post. Apparently, honoring the Constitution and supporting Justice for all Americans is equivalent to taking a hard left turn.
Listening to him talk, you'd think he might be opposed to idealogues, but don't hold your breath waiting for him to denounce Scalia, Alito, or Roberts.

* * * * *
Posted by: Bruce Y | November 17, 2008 3:27 PM
.
I have yet to see anyone on the far left of the court - or anywhere in politics - do any honor to the Constitution. It is advisory only for those who believe the Constitution is a "living document." This latter terminology is code for "we will make the Constitution mean anything we want it to mean." The words used to frame the Constitution have a very definite meaning - aside from a very few clauses and phrases (like "due process," "ex post facto law," or "cruel and unusual punishment") which depend entirely on historical context for their import. Were this not the case, then the Supreme Court could never have held a law to be unconstitutional. The very notion of unconstitutionality takes, as its sole premise, that the Constitution has a definite and discernable meaning. If, on the other hand, reinterpretation beyond the plain meaning of the text were intended, possible or advisable, then the Constitution could always be reinterpreted to the point that the idea of a statute's unconstitutionality would be an absurdity.
.
Bruce, if you had the slightest clue what the Constitution was supposed to mean, if you had done any research into its origins - you might just understand how far afield the current crew of pseudo liberals are in construing it. Hie thee hence to a library and read Elliot's Debates, Farrand's Records, and the Federalist Papers, and you will get that education. Until then, don't presume that the left wingers in government, including those on the bench, are doing the Constitution or this country any justice. Either that, or just continue laughing. Mad men laugh too.

Where does one get the idea that Obama would choose moderates for the Supreme Court? Twice, Obama had the opportunity to vote for a Supreme Court justice and both times he voted no. Roberts and Alito are mainstream conservatives, not ideologues or far right, but mainstream conservatives. Both times he voted no. Obama will select only liberals for the Courts. In fact, I don't know where all this Obama is a moderate stuff comes from. Where in his past has he ever shown himself to be a moderate or vote moderate? Where? Saying so and actually doing it are two different things. Proof is in the pudding, as they say.

The words used to frame the Constitution have a very definite meaning - aside from a very few clauses and phrases (like "due process," "ex post facto law," or "cruel and unusual punishment")
Posted by: John W.
-
You left out (A well regulated Militia).
I don't need some rightie to lecture me about the Constitution considering the way GW trampled all over it the last eight years.
Here's hoping Obama appoints Bill Clinton to the Supreme Court.

john d to think of roberts and alito are moderate conservatives you haven't been paying attention. both are very hard core idealogues and very very extreme right wing. to say that they are moderate conservatives is like saying jane fonda was a avid supporter of the vietnam war

john d to think of roberts and alito are moderate conservatives you haven't been paying attention. both are very hard core idealogues and very very extreme right wing. to say that they are moderate conservatives is like saying jane fonda was a avid supporter of the vietnam war

Posted by: ray | November 17, 2008 5:41 PM

Ray-

What ruling or opinion by either Alito or Roberts causes you to add them to the " very very extreme right wing" bucket?

Just curious...

* * * * *
Posted by: Bruce Y | November 17, 2008 5:05 PM
.
In the first place, if you had bothered to read the D.C. case, you would have seen that the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" - was given its entire intended meaning. It is only the lefties who wish to trample constitutional rights who think that the first clause negates the plain intent of the operative clause. The court didn't add or subtract from the text or meaning of the Constitution by its interpretation.
.
In the second place, you have committed the logical fallacy of guilt by association when you lump all conservatives together with George W. Bush. Many of us consider Bush a changeling and a traitor because of his policies - including all the instances where he felt unconstrained by the Constitution's limitations. You forget that Libertarians, like some Republicans, are also fiscal and institutional conservatives, as well as originalists when it comes to constitutional interpretation. You are sadly mistaken if you believe that Libertarians are "righties" the same way that Duh'bya is.
.
In the third place, even if you don't "need some rightie to lecture [you] about the Constitution" (although actually you do someone to do it), then you should still avail yourself of the materials that I suggest. They document the history and original debates concerning what went into the Constitution and what it was supposed to mean. Is there anything wrong with taking those who wrote the Constitution at their word?

* * * * *
Posted by: ray | November 17, 2008 5:41 PM
.
Jane Fonda was, in fact, an avid fan of the Vietnam War. The only thing she opposed was U.S. participation in it. She was definitely a cheerleader for our enemies.
.
As for the rest of what you say about Alito and Roberts, I challenge you to explain to me how they are "are very hard core ideologues and very[,] very extreme right wing" when they have preserved much of the left wing agendum despite having the votes to overturn some of it. Remember, Alito and Roberts joined the Court's opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. ___ (2007). In that decision, the Court left intact its decision in Roe v. Wade although they had the votes and opportunity to overrule it. In addition, there are a number of instances when Roberts, Alito and other conservative members of the court have taken the side of criminal defendants against the states and the federal government. That's hardly reflects the Machiavellian attitude one often negatively attributes to "hard core ideologues" on the "very, very right wing."
.
On the other hand, I would like to know how anyone can get all misty eyed and cheery over some of the cases cooked up by members of the so-called "liberal" side of the court. Do you recall the case of Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)? That was the little monster written by Justice Stevens in which all of the other "liberal" members concurred. That was the case that said local governments could confiscate people's homes and give them to private businesses as long as the businesses perform some "public function." I guess liberals must hate the "taking clause" and like property confiscation, or they suffer selective amnesia over that case. And then there's the issue of First Amendment rights. As it stands, the conservatives are the ones voting against the free speech restrictions in McCain-Feingold, and the liberals are the ones voting in favor of the restrictions. Yep, a real bunch of civil-libertarians there.

Obama will only put left leaning socialists on the Supreme court. This would reflect Obama"s views.

W was selected by 1 vote in Bush v. Gore.

He proceeded to claim a "mandate".

And repeated the claim in 2004.

And put 2 right wing Italians one the Court, one as a successor to John Marshall????

And you're saying Barack should counter this by appointing "moderates"????

Obama likely to pick moderate justices? Surely you jest, Frank. Obama has proclaimed in no uncertain terms that he wants to remake the Constitution as something other than "a charter of negative liberties" that only says what the government can't do to you but not "what government must do on your behalf." Moderate justices? Puh-leeze! The campaign's over, big guy. Time to start telling the truth again. Oh wait, I forgot. You're not a journalist. You're a propagandist who checked your journalistic integrity and ethics at the door when Obama came on the scene. Silly me.

President Elect Obama, being a scholar of Constitutional law, will without doubt select appointees to the Supreme Court that understand the rights given us under the Bill of Rights, and without ideological leaning. The framers of that document were pretty specific on the meanings of free speech, the right to bear arms, and the right to privacy. He has a better grasp on what is allowed under the Constitution and what is not, than probably any President since James Madison considered the “Father of the Bill of Rights”, and the co-founder of the Democratic Party along with Thomas Jefferson.

As it stands, the conservatives are the ones voting against the free speech restrictions in McCain-Feingold, and the liberals are the ones voting in favor of the restrictions. Yep, a real bunch of civil-libertarians there.
Posted by: John W.
-
This kind of BS is why no one should listen to YOU regarding the Constitution. The issue is NOT free speech, but BIG money. McCain-Feingold is an attempt to equalize the playing field, sort of like "one man, one vote, one dollar". The conservative idealogues think free speech means the rich should have a greater voice than the poor. Money is not speech.

_______________________________________________

"The issue is NOT free speech, but BIG money. McCain-Feingold is an attempt to equalize the playing field, sort of like 'one man, one vote, one dollar'. The conservative idealogues think free speech means the rich should have a greater voice than the poor. Money is not speech."
* * * * *
Posted by: Bruce Y | November 18, 2008 11:36 AM
.
And what you said here is why I think you and many of the other liberals are ignorant when it comes to the both the Constitution and what politicians are doing to violate it. McCain-Feingold did not merely address big money or attempt to level any playing field. Some if its provisions were directed at restricting actual speech as well as political contributions and advocacy that are the equivalent of speech protected by the First Amendment.
.
In particular, section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ("BCRA") made it a federal crime for any labor union or incorporated entity to use its general treasury funds to pay for any “electioneering communication.” In Federal Election Comm’n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. ___ (2007), the Court held that this provision was broad enough to prohibit "issue advocacy" that did not specifically advocate the election or defeat of a particular candidate. To the extent that it did so, the Court held that it violated the WRLI's right to protected First Amendment Speech. And that was just the opinion of Justice Roberts with Justice Alito concurring.
.
Justices Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy agreed with Roberts and Alito; but they would have gone further to overrule the previous case of McConnell v. FEC, 540 U. S. 93 (2003), to the extent it held section 203 of the BCRA could be constitutionally applied at all. Scalia pointed out that numerous earlier cases, including Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976), held that campaign expenditures for purpose of advocacy constituted protected speech under the First Amendment and could not be limited by federal law as long as they were not made in coordination with a candidate's campaign. (See Buckley, at 39–51.) Scalia also cited the case of First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765 (1978), in which the Court struck down a statute that prohibited corporations from spending money in connection with a referendum unless the referendum materially affected the corporation’s property, business, or assets. There, the Court stated, "The principle that such advocacy is 'at the heart of the First Amendment’s protection' and is 'indispensable to decision making in a democracy' is 'no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual.'" (Id at pp. 776–777.)
.
And who was in the dissent? You guessed it: Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer. Not satisfied or convinced by the standard framework for First Amendment claims or the precedent built up over time - much less addressing any of it in their analysis - these so-called "liberals" whined for page after page over the cost to society for having moneyed interests being able to weigh in on political issues. Under their cost balancing scheme it was perfectly acceptable to criminalize even “issue ads” without violating the First Amendment. They are proof that liberals don't stand up for "that which liberates."
.
So, as I said before, these guys are not very good civil libertarians. I also still believe there is a vast world of constitutional law of which you know nada. Be happy: get an education.