A number of persons have said, for some time now (actually on both sides of the aisle) that they favor a particular Presidential candidate that may, for whatever combination of reasons, not necessarily be electable — because the candidate represents their hot-button issue best. Or, absent finding that particular candidate and determining not to vote for the “lesser of two evils,” they have either hinted or written outright that they’ll be staying home come election day.
On the other hand, I have clearly and continuously written that, no matter the primaries, I’ll be voting for the person with the (R) behind their name. Why? some persons have asked.
I would respond: see the title of this post. That is why.
It is anticipated that the next President of the United States may possibly have the opportunity to nominate up to five individuals to fill potential Supreme Court vacancies. The five most senior members of the court are:
-John Paul Stevens, since 12-19-1975
-Antonin Scalia, since 09-26-1986
-Anthony Kennedy, since 02-18-1988
-David Souter, since 10-09-1990
-Clarence Thomas, since 10-23-1991
For me, that’s simply reason enough to vote Republican.
In my opinion, what immediate two qualities should we look for in a SCOTUS nominee? How about:
– Someone who has not cited or supported foreign case law in our courts
– A strict constructionist who will not legislate from the SCOTUS chambers
Considering those factors, what kind of a person do you think will be nominated by a Demorat?
BZ
Best reasoning yet… But who’s to say that if some asshole like Giuliani gets in he won’t go total libber, which he is anyway, and tear the SCOTUS apart in the process??
I just can’t sit here and say I’ll vote the ‘R’ no matter what, I might, and likely will vote the ‘T’, as in Tancredo, even though he is dropping out, I will do a write in before I settle for pure evil, I won’t sit it out but I’ll die and go to hell before I vote for Giuliani, Romney or McCain…
Well BZ, That is one of the reasons we got GWB for the 2nd term.
I do believe, that was the only GOOD thing that came out of his 2nd term. Since then we have been inundated with incompetence…
As far as voting the “R” you know my feelings, and as of right now I am hoping it doesn’t come to that.
We still have Hunter and FT in there so there is hope.
BTW, I heard about the fallen officer at Fred’s and I truly am sorry to hear it.
Keep the faith my friend.
I’ll save the rant about it till later.
TF: one thing about Giuliani, he came out early and said and has been consistent in saying that he would, as he phrases it, appoint “strict constructionist” judges.
Bushwack: I am still of the opinion that a moderate or conservative SCOTUS can help to keep the country on track damned near as much as any president. Or more. And thank you.
BZ
SCOTUS appointments are my top priority in picking a president. And thats another reason why I think Huckabee would be a disaster.
I would, actually, flip things around a bit and have some basic requirements on International Law as it was before we were a Nation that we inhereted from England. That has proven to be a very interesting route, so it would go something like this:
1) Describe why and how the US falls under the Treaty of Westphalia. That should be a good head scratcher for the unwary… even better is putting forward to ask if they can demonstrate how that has been incorporated into our modern law.
2) Describe how Blackstone’s Commentaries shape how US law was instituted via the common law and how that was shaped by the works of Grotius and Vattel. This should, indeed, make a liberal squirm as it gets to the basics of being a Nation. These works are voluminously cited in the early SCOTUS and are part of stare decisis, and so knowing that is paramount to being a good justice.
3) Describe how the Admiralty jurisdiction in the US parallels that of the UK and why this is so. Then describe the reasoning for why items from the British court can guide and yet be non-decisive in US cases. That, actually, would probably trip up most conservative candidates a bit and start to get some sweat present as it points to the more universal nature of Law of Nations and the Admiralty… and yet it must be administered wholly for ourselves, even given it can stretch across the oceans to other lands.
4) Describe how the US Constitution carries on these concepts and encapsulates them by creating a separate law that is wholly our own even by drawing on diverse sources.
5) Then ask a candidate *why* do we need to draw on other, outside, law beyond the Admiralty for ANYTHING.
6) Finally, describe how the functions described for the Sovereign in Law of Nations is divided between the Executive and Legislative and why these divisions are pertinent.
There, that ought to make such individuals sweat bullets.
BZ, you actually believe Giuliani??
That is the best reason there is to vote GOP.
The worst on the GOP side is better than the best of the DEM.
It has been that way every year since 1980.
TF: yes, I actually do. He is one of the few Leaders in the GOP group.
Shoprat: I completely concur.
BZ