It could happen! Three liberal judges are in their 70's and 80's. What does their age have to do with it? A lot. These judges will likely retire during the next presidential term and if McCain is elected, you can bet more conservative judges will make it on the highest bench in the nation. Not that there is anything wrong with conservative judges, but the change would highlight two things: the conversation within the halls at the supreme court and the political process.
When I think of the conversation happening in the (future more conservative) supreme court, I'm left without much to consider. Can you imagine the conversation? It would be like a bunch of people agreeing with each other. No other viewpoint would make it in. Those liberal ideas of wide reaching personal freedoms, gone. Instead, the members of the court would turn to conservative idealism, which some have argued is more like a rubber stamp for the GOP.
After reading the paragraph above, you should've picked up on my second point: politics. Depending on the presidential election, politics might just be the cause for an ultra conservative court of a balanced court. More McCain and you get more conservative judges. More Obama and you get balance. Naturally, the same argument could be made if the situation was reversed (more liberal and less conservative judges). I mention this because of my use of the word "balance". Fairness is important in these situations. The politics of the supreme court nominations is "the point". Politicians nominate, endorse and elect active judges. Yet, many of the politicians vote what their party tells them. Thus, you have conservative or liberal judges; built strictly out of party lines. Judges in the middle of the political spectrum, what's their fate? Well, you don't have to worry about that, because they can't exist.
It is too bad that our politicians don't see the forest through the trees on the supreme court membership process. Sure there are checks and balances (the nomination process), but imagine if they chose judges based on a balanced career. What a different bench it would be...
When I think of the conversation happening in the (future more conservative) supreme court, I'm left without much to consider. Can you imagine the conversation? It would be like a bunch of people agreeing with each other. No other viewpoint would make it in. Those liberal ideas of wide reaching personal freedoms, gone. Instead, the members of the court would turn to conservative idealism, which some have argued is more like a rubber stamp for the GOP.
After reading the paragraph above, you should've picked up on my second point: politics. Depending on the presidential election, politics might just be the cause for an ultra conservative court of a balanced court. More McCain and you get more conservative judges. More Obama and you get balance. Naturally, the same argument could be made if the situation was reversed (more liberal and less conservative judges). I mention this because of my use of the word "balance". Fairness is important in these situations. The politics of the supreme court nominations is "the point". Politicians nominate, endorse and elect active judges. Yet, many of the politicians vote what their party tells them. Thus, you have conservative or liberal judges; built strictly out of party lines. Judges in the middle of the political spectrum, what's their fate? Well, you don't have to worry about that, because they can't exist.
It is too bad that our politicians don't see the forest through the trees on the supreme court membership process. Sure there are checks and balances (the nomination process), but imagine if they chose judges based on a balanced career. What a different bench it would be...
Comments