The question of judges is one of the biggest reasons I back John McCain this year, despite my strong criticism in the past. A lot of other conservatives are doing so on the same basis.

Prominent conservatives and activists are indicating they will put aside their differences with presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain and rally their supporters to his side because of one issue: federal judgeships.

In big gatherings and small, in e-mails and one-on-one conversations, conservative opinion leaders fear a Democratic president, especially Sen. Barack Obama, will use the presidential power to appoint federal judges who will remove references to God and religious symbols from public places.

They predict the incoming president likely will fill more vacancies on the federal bench over the next four years than at any time in recent memory, giving a Democratic administration the power to shape the courts to reflect a liberal worldview.

* * *

ACLU general counsel Peter J. Ferrara, a former Reagan White House aide, said, "McCain said he'd appoint people like [Supreme Court Chief Justice John] Roberts and [Justice Samuel] Alito. Obama is saying he'd name people like [Justices Ruth Bader] Ginsberg and [David] Souter."

So as you can see, there are some seriously different views out there on Supreme Court nominees. Which would you prefer – Justice Janice Rogers Brown, or this?

It's likely that the next president will face at least one Supreme Court vacancy. Obama should promise Hillary Clinton, now, that if he wins in November, the vacancy will be hers, making her first on a list of one.

Obama and Clinton have wound up agreeing on nearly every major issue during the campaign; at the end of the day, they share many orthodoxies. Unless the Supreme Court were to get mired in minuscule details of what constitutes universal health care, Obama could assume that he'd be pleased with most Clinton votes, certainly on major issues such as abortion.

Obama could also appreciate Clinton's undeniably keen mind. Even Clinton detractors have noted her remarkable mental skills; she would be equal to any legal or intellectual challenge she would face as a justice. The fact that she hasn't served on a bench before would be inconsequential, considering her experience in law and in government.

If Obama were to promise Clinton the first court vacancy, her supporters would actually have a stronger incentive to support him for president than they would if she were going to be vice president. Given the Supreme Court's delicate liberal-conservative balance, she would play a major role in charting the country's future; there is no guarantee that a Clinton vice presidency would achieve such importance.

Think about it, friends – Hillary Rodham Clinton on the US Supreme Court for the next couple of decades. Doesn’t that notion leave your stomach churning? After all, she clearly has no interest in upholding precedent or exercising any interest in judicial restraint if she doesn’t like the ideological outcome of a case – and like Earl Warren, this natural-born politician would be a phenomenal arm-twister in pursuit of a majority. Would you like to bet that 5-4 decisions would peachy to all the liberals when she cobbled together a majority?

Posted by: Greg at 09:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 537 words, total size 4 kb.