Hillary's Supporters and the Supreme Court
According to various polls, as many as 25% of the voters who say they support Hillary Clinton are unsure whether they will support Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton's speech at the Democratic Convention no doubt persuaded many of those voters to support Obama. But some will continue to equivocate. What can they possibly be thinking?
As Clinton emphasized at the Convention, on almost every important issue for which a voter would support her, Barack Obama is easily the better choice than John McCain. Whether the issue is health care, the war in Iraq, the economy, the environment, taxes, education, or energy policy, Clinton is much closer to Obama than to McCain.
There are several reasons why Clinton supporters might nonetheless prefer McCain to Obama. First, they might agree with McCain on the issues, but supported Clinton because they want to see a woman elected president. Second, they might agree with Clinton and Obama on the issues, but for reasons relating to Obama's race or experience might be uneasy about Obama as a potential president. Third, they might be angry with Obama, his supporters, or the Democratic Party for "unfairly" denying Clinton the nomination, and might therefore want to "punish" them and deter such "unfairness" in the future by electing McCain. Fourth, they might be so committed to the (eventual) election of Hillary Clinton as president that they are willing to support McCain in 2008 in order to set up Clinton for 2012.
Hillary Clinton's speech at the Convention should have a significant impact on her supporters, especially those in the second, third and fourth categories. I want to address an issue, mentioned but not emphasized by Clinton, which should be of considerable importance to most of her supporters: the Supreme Court of the United States.
The current makeup of the Supreme Court renders it the most conservative group of justices in living memory. Seven of the nine justices were appointed by Republican presidents, four of the current justices (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito) are more conservative than any other justice to serve in the past half-century, and there is no "liberal" justice on the current Court (even Ginsburg and Breyer are a far cry from justices like William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Earl Warren and William Douglas). Indeed, as Justice Stevens has observed, every appointment to the Court in the past thirty years has moved the Court to the right (that is, every justice appointed in the past thirty years was more conservative than the justice he or she replaced).
Should this matter to the supporters of Hillary Clinton (at least those in my second, third, and fourth categories)? You bet it should. On issues like abortion, racial discrimination, violence against women, women's rights, voting rights, gay rights, free speech, freedom of religion, gun control, educational equality, and personal privacy, the Supreme Court has a profound impact on our society.
Twice before in recent presidential elections, Democratic voters have sat on their hands, with dire consequences for the Supreme Court and the nation. In 1968, many traditionally Democratic voters, angry at the party's nomination of Hubert Humphrey, "punished the party" by staying home on election day, enabling the election of Richard Nixon. Even putting aside such issues as the Vietnam War and Watergate, the election of Richard Nixon had a devastating impact on the Supreme Court. Nixon appointed four justices during his tenure. Had Hubert Humphrey made those nominations, we would never have heard of William Rehnquist and Warren Burger. The direction and substance of constitutional law would have been dramatically and irrevocably different than it is today.
More recently, in 2000, many traditionally Democratic voters naively cast their ballots for Ralph Nader, enabling the election of George W. Bush. Even putting aside such issues as the war in Iraq and torture, the election of George W. Bush again had a devastating impact on the Supreme Court. Bush was able to appoint two extremely conservative (and young) justices, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, who are likely to shape the direction and substance of constitutional law for many decades to come. Had Al Gore made those nominations, we would today have had a Supreme Court much more attuned to the interests of those who support Hillary Clinton.
The conventional wisdom is that the next president is likely to have two or three nominations to the Supreme Court, and the positions most likely to be filled are those currently held by the more moderate justices. The difference between a Supreme Court that includes two or three new justices appointed by John McCain and a Court that includes two or three new justices appointed by Barack of Obama should be of great concern to those who share Hillary Clinton's commitment to justice, fairness, and equality. They should put aside their anger and frustration aside, as well as their too-clever strategies for future elections, and heed Hillary Clinton's advice: in the interests of their children and their children's children, and in the interests of their nation, they should support Barack Obama. Their Constitution depends on it.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I've always thought that once Obama won the nomination, he would eventually pick HRC to be on the Supreme Court. It's a great place for her where she would do a lot of good. Things have happened as they should and HRC will have a lot of clout in the Supreme Court where I believe she is eventually headed.
Independent for obama/Biden
That would be good but I think she should be Attorney General and go after all of the Bad guys especially Bush and Cheney for war crimes and how can I forget Karl Rove lock him up for the rest of his life. They have broken more constitutional laws I can see it taking her 8 years to go through all the criminals. They put the Clinton's through 8 years of hell. Time for pay back.
Best part about Hillary Clinton on the Supreme Court? Ultimate job security. The vast majority of the reasons why moderates and progressives sometimes dislike the Clintons are related to the bunker mentality from living their lives in the brutal, relentless news cycle of national politics. They are paranoid to the extreme and fiercely protective of their power and reputation.
But put Hillary in a job she can hold unchallenged for as long she wants, and I think that her favorable qualities will shine and her less favorable ones can be somewhat forgotten. Bill can play the elder statesman, Hill can play the revered justice, neither of them would ever have to run for anything ever again, and none of us would ever again have to witness what the Clintons become when they run for office.
Why are people so stupid?
I don't know, why are u? Have you seen what your wonderful candidate is up to lately? BECOMING A FREAKING GREEK GOD! LOL! I CAN'T GET OVER IT, HE IS HAVING A GREEK TEMPLE BUILT ON INVESCO FIELD FOR HIS CORONATION! RETHUGS ARE ALREADY MAKING HAY OVER IT AND I SAVED ONE OF THE PICS OFF POWER LINE, YOU GOTTA SEE IT! WHAT A LAUGHING STOCK!
So? Your point is?
It's just for a SPEECH. What's the big darn deal about THAT?
Government, philosophy, and Democracy also owe their roots to the Ancient Greeks, and this is one of the reasons that so many government buildings feature columns and other detailing reminiscent of the Acropolis.
Your theory about the campaign's design choice merely underscores your ignorance about architectural design and maybe illuminates a propensity to allow your bias overtake the logic centers of your mind.
The GOP's bluster is manufactured. The Democrats could've chosen anything and the GOP would make a fuss. That is what they do; try to grab the spotlight regardless of merit or fact.
The laughing stock would be the fool that falls for Karl Rove's bag of dirty tricks.
They're not stupid, they're just not thinking. They're too busy worrying about their feelings and, oddly enough, the feelings of the politicians they support.
It's like any reality TV show, where the host asks the contestants on the chopping block why they deserve to stay, and they invariable talk about how much they want to stay, how much they've "grown" personally, how they have better or nicer personalities than some of the other contestants, etc., but nothing about how well they've performed according to the relevant criteria of the competition. It's psychobabble.
To the PUMAs, a political campaign is like a television drama in which they get to play a role, and they're simply creating a conflict they thought was missing from the plot. They're just trying to make the campaign more compelling television, because they judge their happiness by how much they enjoy what's on TV.
If JMC wins I hope he appoints conservative judges that will work towards overturning Roe V Wade. It would only serve these crazy azz women right.
I still can't believe that experience is an issue. NONE of the current candidates have any experience being POTUS! Both would be learning on the job if elected. But of course, no one thinks of that angle.
So if experience is really a red herring, what counts then? IMHO, JUDGEMENT.
And lately, it is obvious that Sen Obama's judgement TRUMPS McCain's. You just have to look at what the Bush admin has been doing lately vis-a-vis foreign policy to see what I mean.
McCain? Learn? I have my doubts.
Right. McCain's experience amounts to doing the same wrong things over and over without learning from them. It might be experience, but it's also a definition of insanity.
Let's look at a leadership position in which both McCain and Obama have experience: running a presidential campaign. McCain's campaign has gone so badly at times that Republicans who really want McCain to win have criticized his campaign, saying that it wasn't serving him well. What a laugh. Who's in charge? And this is not McCain's first campaign either. Obama's campaign, on the other hand, has performed miracles, . By all means, let's decide this election on the basis of experience.
"Let's look at a leadership position in which both McCain and Obama have experience: running a presidential campaign."
Neither of these candidates are running or leading their campaigns, the campaign managers, consultants, staff, etc. do that. The candidates are so handled and scripted that it's more like being in a beauty pageant; it's all about getting people to like them. 0bama has hired better people and has better people working for him but that doesn't make him a leader, it makes him a manager. There is an argument though that the President should be an effective manager more than a leader.
I agree wholeheartedly. The "experience" façade is used to generate confusion over intangibles. People should look at the issues, look at what their candidate supports and opposes. That is what really matters.
Read the last paragraph again--it cannot be said often nor loudly enough: McCain changes the nature of the Supreme Court in catastrophic ways for the rest of our lives and the lives of our children.
Or have you PUMAs no children?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
