Hillary on the high court?
Read it and weep, folks because if Obama wins in November, we could easily see this happening. It would be an interesting outreach to the Clinton supporters who, BTW, appear to be volunteering for our side. Jonah Goldberg at NRO's Corner agrees with Lisa Schiffren's concerns. From Ms. Schiffren:
Since Hillary has probably had enough martyrdom for a lifetime, she has every incentive to play hardball now, and to be just plain disruptive if she doesn't get what she wants. If she doesn't want to be VP? I personally fear a Supreme Court seat for her. It is the only thing that would make giving up a lifetime Senate seat worthwhile.
Meanwhile, watching her fans last night, and listening to some — though by no means all — of my own personal middle-aged, female Democrat friends who have supported her (some with large chunks of cash, fundraising and campaigning in cold places last winter) many intend to vote for John McCain regardless of what Hillary says to do in some staged reconciliation. They are just plain pissed off. And, for some mysterious reason, they can actually see the radical left agenda Barack is hiding in liberal clothing, though they never would concede such a thing about Hillary or John Edwards. And they think it goes over whatever line exists for them. I wish I had something more high-minded to say about this, but I find it quite entertaining when someone who has never voted Republican in her life starts making an urgent case for John McCain at a social function. I have learned to keep quiet and nod sympathetically. What else can you do?
From Jonah:
I fear that Lisa's fears are well-placed. I think a Hillary appointment to the Supreme Court would be immensely appealing to both Hillary's fans and to Obama's. I'm not entirely convinced Hillary would want it. But I am completely convinced that if Hillary wants it, conservatives must do everything legally within their power to stop it. A Hillary Clinton without accountability to voters and only concerned with her place in history would be a total nightmare on the court. Nominating Hillary must be seen as the new nuclear option. The idea that Obama can be a "uniter" by putting one of the most divisive pols in modern American politics needs to be ridiculed loudly and preemptively. Indeed, anyone who's ever called for "human reconstruction" and redefining what it means to be a human being should never be allowed on the Supreme Court, or even near its water supply.
We have tried to make this point loud and clear: An Obama presidency, with the possibility of as many as three to four Supreme Court nominations coming up in the next four to eight years, would put the high court of out the reach of sensible jurists for decades. Justice John Paul Stevens was appointed by President Ford, and has been on the court since 1975. That's three decades his influence has been prevalent on the court, and we have seen where his ideology lies. It doesn't lay within the originalist philosophy of jurisprudence. It lies in the realm of a "living, breathing" Constitution.
Jonah Goldberg is right to be concerned about a "Justice" Hillary Rodham Clinton that is completely unaccountable to the people. No greater defender of Roe v. Wade would be on the court, save Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer. Throw in her views regarding guns, free speech and the right of free exercise of religion, and you have a very radical, polarizing figure who would sit on the high court.
Readers know where we stand with regard to the Supreme Court. (BTW, President Bush? If Justice Stevens steps down, I offer myself as a replacement.) It is the last line of defense when it comes to our rights and freedoms. Would Obama be willing to appoint her to the high court, knowing just how polarizing she is? Would he do it as a pander to the Hillary supporters to bring them over o his side? Are you kidding? He'd do it for a Klondike Bar if he thought he could "buy" votes in a key demographic that he seems to have a problem with.
But it's a point that should be dealt with right now. It's time for John McCain's people to put together an ad or two discussing who Obama would consider for the Supreme Court. Given his radical ideas, we could only expect radical figures tinkering with the Constitution.
Publius II
Since Hillary has probably had enough martyrdom for a lifetime, she has every incentive to play hardball now, and to be just plain disruptive if she doesn't get what she wants. If she doesn't want to be VP? I personally fear a Supreme Court seat for her. It is the only thing that would make giving up a lifetime Senate seat worthwhile.
Meanwhile, watching her fans last night, and listening to some — though by no means all — of my own personal middle-aged, female Democrat friends who have supported her (some with large chunks of cash, fundraising and campaigning in cold places last winter) many intend to vote for John McCain regardless of what Hillary says to do in some staged reconciliation. They are just plain pissed off. And, for some mysterious reason, they can actually see the radical left agenda Barack is hiding in liberal clothing, though they never would concede such a thing about Hillary or John Edwards. And they think it goes over whatever line exists for them. I wish I had something more high-minded to say about this, but I find it quite entertaining when someone who has never voted Republican in her life starts making an urgent case for John McCain at a social function. I have learned to keep quiet and nod sympathetically. What else can you do?
From Jonah:
I fear that Lisa's fears are well-placed. I think a Hillary appointment to the Supreme Court would be immensely appealing to both Hillary's fans and to Obama's. I'm not entirely convinced Hillary would want it. But I am completely convinced that if Hillary wants it, conservatives must do everything legally within their power to stop it. A Hillary Clinton without accountability to voters and only concerned with her place in history would be a total nightmare on the court. Nominating Hillary must be seen as the new nuclear option. The idea that Obama can be a "uniter" by putting one of the most divisive pols in modern American politics needs to be ridiculed loudly and preemptively. Indeed, anyone who's ever called for "human reconstruction" and redefining what it means to be a human being should never be allowed on the Supreme Court, or even near its water supply.
We have tried to make this point loud and clear: An Obama presidency, with the possibility of as many as three to four Supreme Court nominations coming up in the next four to eight years, would put the high court of out the reach of sensible jurists for decades. Justice John Paul Stevens was appointed by President Ford, and has been on the court since 1975. That's three decades his influence has been prevalent on the court, and we have seen where his ideology lies. It doesn't lay within the originalist philosophy of jurisprudence. It lies in the realm of a "living, breathing" Constitution.
Jonah Goldberg is right to be concerned about a "Justice" Hillary Rodham Clinton that is completely unaccountable to the people. No greater defender of Roe v. Wade would be on the court, save Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer. Throw in her views regarding guns, free speech and the right of free exercise of religion, and you have a very radical, polarizing figure who would sit on the high court.
Readers know where we stand with regard to the Supreme Court. (BTW, President Bush? If Justice Stevens steps down, I offer myself as a replacement.) It is the last line of defense when it comes to our rights and freedoms. Would Obama be willing to appoint her to the high court, knowing just how polarizing she is? Would he do it as a pander to the Hillary supporters to bring them over o his side? Are you kidding? He'd do it for a Klondike Bar if he thought he could "buy" votes in a key demographic that he seems to have a problem with.
But it's a point that should be dealt with right now. It's time for John McCain's people to put together an ad or two discussing who Obama would consider for the Supreme Court. Given his radical ideas, we could only expect radical figures tinkering with the Constitution.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home