Obama, Supreme Court and extreme partisanship
By Brian Kirwin | Tuesday, April 6th, 2010 | PolicyObama campaigned on bipartisanship and spoke about it frequently after he took office. Was he serious? Is he now?
We’ll find out as Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, acknowledged leader of the liberal wing of the Court, retires as many speculate may happen as soon as this month.
Liberal Stevens was nominated by Republican President Gerald Ford.
That’s a key point, and one I think deserves a great deal of attention. Will Obama match Ford’s bipartisanship?
It’s always struck me as funny how Republicans have had a record of nominating liberal justices, but darned if I can find Democrats nominating anyone but liberals. In fact, I had to wander back nearly half a century to John F. Kennedy to find a Democrat who nominated a non-liberal to the Supreme Court (Byron White).
Republicans have nominated gobs of Souters, O’Connors, and even early Roe supporter Burger. Democrats have…..none. Zero. Zilch. 1962 the last time a Democrat President nominated someone that wasn’t devoutly, expressly and indisputably liberal.
Will Obama change that?
Obama liked to campaign about uniting the nation and being a “transformative” political leader. Will he be? Or will be simply a liberal ideologue looking to stamp his political opinions in judicial decisions.
How much of a leader will he be?
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
The right wants to jeer him. The left wants to censor him. Moderates usually want both. Brian Kirwin is a political consultant and public relations strategist in Virginia Beach with a lightning-rod flair. Brian also serves on the VB Arts & Humanities Commission and frequently appears on Hampton Roads theatrical stages, if only to prove that all actors aren’t liberals. Kirwin’s columns stir up debate and hit the political scene with no punches pulled.
Comments
8 Responses to "Obama, Supreme Court and extreme partisanship"
I love the rhetorical questions Brian – but you and I both know it isn’t going to happen. Republicans nominate liberals (but call them moderates) because they are afraid of the media, and afraid to stand up and say that they will nominate people that have the judicial philosophy they really want to see on the court – liberals have no such qualms. For all of his faults I am the most grateful that GWB had the fortitude to nominate constitutionalists to the Court – and stick by it.
Like everthing else that obama says, when he talks about bi-partisanhip, just think the opposite. He and his fellow libs really think nominating a far left anti-American is what the Nation really wants.
I just heard Harry Reid say in an interview, only a minority of Americans dislike the health care bill. They really believe their policies are beloved by the vast majority of Americans. So, of course they think they can keep pushing their socialist agenda.
This is an interesting observation but I question whether the recent Supreme Court ruling on corporations having free speech rights is what the Founders intended and this came from the conservative side of the court. Jefferson, in his day was concerned about the influence of corporations in politics and we can see with the TARP bailout evidence of this. Hopefully judges are nominated to the Supreme Court who take more moderate views than extreme left or right and follow the intent of our Founding Fathers. Activism from either side is worrying to me.
As long as the GOP members continue to vote “no on everything” including thier own ideas, I can’t see The President reaching across the floor. It would seem he has no choice but to use only the Dem votes to accomplish anything he wants to accomplish. Given that view, I can’t see him ever nominating a concerivative to the court. JMO
Then he’s a follower, not a leader.
LOL… He can lead a GOP horse to water, but he can’t make it drink.
Kirwin’s call for bi-partisanship: BWaahahahahahahahhahahahahahah!
Brian, this is the most brilliantly satirical thing you’ve every written. Bravo! Well played.
Brian, you misunderstand The Prez. Dems define ‘bi-partisanship’ as Republicans agreeing with Dems’ positions. Compromise is not part of their definition. He will nominate a doctrinaire liberal who the media will anoint as a ‘dynamic, creative progressive thinker’ and we’ll be stuck w/another liberal, activist justice. Just swell.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.