Posted by Tim on Wed, 20 Oct 2004 05:48 | #

Perhaps the strongest argument for a Bush vote is that during the next presidential term a number of key Supreme Court seats will need to be filled. If these posts are filled by liberal appointees the impact on key ‘culture wars’ issues over the next decade or so will be significant.

The liberal authors of the Nation in the link attached have highlighted why they see a Kerry presidency important.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041025&s=pollitt

Outside of it’s foreign policy role, it could be argued that the main significance of the presidency is that it provides an ‘electoral college’ for the Supreme Court.

Posted by Tim on Wed, 20 Oct 2004 06:21 | #

P.S.

It’s also interesting to note that it was an activist Supreme Court that appointed Bush in it’s election decision.

This irony was pointed out by the liberal writers at ‘Common Dreams’

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1008-31.htm

There may be some cosmic irony to all this. It was Eisenhower who appointed Warren as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Perhaps the activist social reformist Court par excellence!

(On Ike and Warren
http://www.africanamericans.com/EisenhowerAdministration.htm )

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 26 Oct 2004 01:41 | #

As regards Tim’s view that Supreme Court Justices appointed by Bush would be more conservative than those appointed by Kerry:  don’t be too sure.  Bush’s father, remember, appointed David Souter, one of the most left-wing judges on the Court today. 

Here’s Sam Francis’ view of the matter:

“I leave it to the conservative imagination to think of what [political factors] would motivate George W. Bush in his appointments [to the Supreme Court]. Professor Tushnet may be right that a justice appointed by President Bush would be ‘somewhat more conservative’ than one named by John Kerry, but then again he might well be wrong. The truth is that a Bush appointee might be far, far to the left of anyone Mr. Kerry could expect to get through the Senate. Vote for Mr. Bush if you will, but don’t bet your ballot on what will happen to the Supreme Court if you do.”

Here’s Kara Hopkins:

“ ‘What about judges?,’ Republicans ask conservatives [who boycott the election since there’s no conservative candidate].  That argument no longer persuades.  Six Republican-appointed justices sat on the Court that decided</i> Roe v. Wade; Nixon appointee Harry Blackmun wrote the decision. And after 12 years of Reagan and Bush, the Court affirmed Roe in 1992.

Tim said another thing that deserves comment:  it wasn’t “an activist Supreme Court that appointed Bush,” but a Supreme Court going about its normal duties, in the course of which it prevented the Democrats from stealing the election in broad daylight.  Bush won.  The Dems were trying to take it away from him.  The Court put a stop to their antics.  Nothing “activist” about it, and he was in no way “appointed,” but became president (and an appallingly bad one he turned out to be, unfortunately) by winning the election.

(I voted for Howard Phillips of the Constitution Party, incidentally.)