Friday, July 25, 2008

Liberals: We want an "anti-Scalia"

According to this article, liberals are hoping for an "anti-Scalia" nomination to the Supreme Court if Senator Obama is elected President:
... They want their own Antonin Scalia. Or rather, an anti-Scalia, an individual who can easily articulate a liberal interpretation of the Constitution, offer a quick sound bite and be prepared to mix it up with conservative activists beyond the marble and red velvet of the Supreme Court.
...
"Someone with vision," said Doug Kendall, who recently helped found a new liberal think tank called the Constitutional Accountability Center. "Someone who looks hard at the text and history of the Constitution, as Justice Scalia does, and articulates a very clear idea of how that text points to liberal and progressive outcomes."
...
If Obama had the opportunity to make an appointment, it would be only the fourth nomination from a Democratic president in more than 40 years. And for activists on the left, it could signal the opportunity to create a new dynamic for the court.

"It is a court with no true liberal on it, the most conservative court in 75 years," said Geoffrey Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago, where Obama once taught constitutional law. "What we call liberals on this court are moderates, or moderate liberals, if you want to get refined about it." [emphasis added]

Stone notes, as he said Stevens has, that every justice on the current court with the exception of Ginsburg is more conservative than the justice he replaced -- a natural evolution given that seven of the nine were appointed by Republican presidents.
...
Obama himself has been opaque and even contradictory about his criteria for a justice. He voted against both Roberts and Alito, and has said he sees Ginsburg and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and David H. Souter as the kinds of "sensible" justices he would favor.

Yet, as the court's term ended last month, he praised the court's decision in support of an individual right to gun ownership that struck down the District of Columbia's handgun ban, a decision in which Roberts and Alito were in the majority and liberals dissented.

Likewise, he disagreed with the court's decision that the death penalty may not be applied to child rapists, where Ginsburg, Breyer and Souter were in the majority and the conservative justices were in dissent.

Obama has said that justices will be in agreement 95 percent of the time, and in the other cases he looks for a judge "to bring in his or her own perspectives, his ethics, his or her moral bearings." [emphasis added]

Wow - there are "no true liberal[s]" on the Supreme Court today? Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter are "moderates"? I guess that's how the far Left perceives the Court. I shudder to think the type of justice that would get nominated and confirmed if a Democrat president and a super-majority Democrat-controlled Senate get together.

No comments: