Skip to main content

“That’s how close Roe v. Wade is,” declared Vice President Joe Biden during his October 11th debate with Congressman Paul Ryan.  He preceded that warning with the prediction that “the next president will get one or two Supreme Court nominees.”  

For many months, we Americans have been focused on, or overwhelmed and at times disgusted by, the race for the U.S. Presidency and various seats in the U.S. Congress.  Yet, Biden’s brief debate admonition was a rare reminder about the election’s implications for the third branch of the federal government.  

On November 6th, there were no election ballots with a box for “U.S. Supreme Court Justice.”  Yet, the American vote on that day may have great implications on the list of justices of the Supreme Court, and the law it will shape, for many years to come.  But then, in contrast to the certainty expressed in Biden’s debate prediction, it is also possible that the election will have no implication on the court at all.

Of the nine current Supreme Court Justices, four are now over the age of seventy.  The oldest, who will soon be eighty, is Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Appointed by President Bill Clinton is 1993, Justice Ginsburg is a former general counsel for the ACLU and an outspoken champion for women’s rights.  She has spent her years on the court with a prominent and respected voice in its more progressive wing.  

Justice Ginsburg, age 79, is also a survivor of colorectal and pancreatic cancers, but she has recently insisted that her health is good.  Still, given her age, health history and progressive lean, there is obvious logic to the speculation that she might choose to have her replacement appointed by President Barack Obama rather than take the chance that a Republican might succeed him in 2016.  

When asked about her plans, the oldest justice has said, “You have to take it year by year.”  But, the clearest indication about her plans may have come from some of her other words.  She has expressed a great admiration for the legendary former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis who retired at age 82 in 1939.  The admiration includes a stated desire to match his tenure, which she will accomplish if she remains on the Court for three more years.  That landmark would occur in March 2015 when Ginsburg turns 82 and Obama still has nearly two years remaining is his second term.

If President Obama does have the opportunity to replace Justice Ginsburg, his appointment will do little to change to the ideological make-up of the court or its jurisprudence.  Yet, its importance is still great because of what it makes less likely.  A replacement of the senior progressive justice with a more junior like-minded justice will prevent a replacement with a conservative appointee that might move the court further to the right.  

Like Ginsburg, Justice Stephen Breyer, age 74, was an appointee of President Clinton.  There is less speculation that Justice Breyer might leave the court in the near future.  He has been generally healthy and appears to enjoy his place on the court.

A more momentous change will occur upon a departure of one of the court’s conservative stalwarts.  Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy are both age 76.  

Justice Scalia, who was appointed by President Reagan in 1986, has long been the intellectual heft of the conservative wing of the court.  In a July interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan, Scalia said “of course I’ll retire … certainly I’ll retire when I — when I think I’m — I’m not doing as good a job as I used to.  That — that will make me feel very bad.”

It would be a great surprise if Scalia voluntarily left a vacancy on the court for an Obama nomination.  Yet, similar surprises have occurred before.  There was the resignation in 1991 of Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American Supreme Court justice and a legendary figure as an attorney during the civil rights movement.  His retirement during the first President Bush’s only term, gave the Republican a chance to appoint the most conservative justice on the current court, Clarence Thomas.  

However, at the time of Marshall’s retirement, he was 83 years old and he had grown very weary of his effort to hold on in office until the election of a Democratic president.  In fact, Justice Marshall lived little more than a year after his retirement when he passed away on January 24, 1993, four days after the inauguration of Democratic President Bill Clinton.

Other than the possible replacement of Justice Ginsburg, the most likely nomination opportunity for President Obama might occur upon a retirement of Justice Kennedy.  Like Scalia, he is 76 years old, has had few health concerns and has not appeared to be preparing to turn in his robe.  However, a 2010 article in the New York Daily News did announce that Kennedy “has told relatives and friends he plans to stay on the high court for at least three more years - through the end of Obama’s first term.”  In President Obama’s upcoming second term, Kennedy’s plans remain unknown.

Since the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in 2005, Kennedy has generally been the most likely swing voter on the court.  While generally a conservative justice, he has on ever more rare occasions joined the opinions of the court’s more liberal wing.  The theory that Kennedy might retire during a Democratic presidency involves the assumption that he might not be insurmountably resistant to the idea of his replacement by another member of that liberal wing.  The President’s public criticism of his majority opinion in the 2010 Citizens United decision is unlikely to increase those chances.  Obama called the ruling “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power ... in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

Of course, as with all of us humans, life can carry surprises that change firmly desired plans.  The 80 year old conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist died while still a member of the court in 2005.  In that same year, the moderate conservative O’Connor retired earlier than expected to care for her husband who had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease.

In addition to Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy, the other conservative Republican appointees are Chief Justice John Roberts, age 57, and Justice Samuel Alito, age 62, both appointed by the junior President Bush.  Other than Ginsburg and Breyer, the remaining progressive justices are the first term Obama appointees, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, age 58, and Justice Elena Kagan, age 52.

Given all of the nomination speculation, you might not be surprised that it has extended to the mention of possible future Obama nominees.   The most well-known rumored choice is probably Janet Napolitano.  She is the current U.S. Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.  At age 54, she is also the former governor of Arizona and its attorney general before that.  While her experience in the Obama cabinet may open her up to greater questioning and criticism than other possible candidates, her experience as a governor will likely be appealing to President Obama who has expressed an interest in adding a justice with time spent in elected office.

Also mentioned as a potential choice is Judge Diane Wood, age 62, who currently serves on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and who was considered by President Obama for his two first term appointments.  She was appointed to her court by Bill Clinton in 1995. Prior to that, she was a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago, which is notably also where Obama taught constitutional law.  She previously served as a clerk for former Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun and she currently serves as a liberal counter-balance to the conservative members of her court.  

Another possibility mentioned often is the current California Attorney General Kamala Harris.  She is 48 years old and was born to immigrant parents from India and Jamaica.  A possible deterrent to Supreme Court aspirations is her rumored interest in running for the California governorship.

After his first term appointments of Sotomayor and Kagan, what is the likelihood that President Obama will appoint three straight justices that are women?  If the replacement is for the seat of a departing Justice Ginsburg, a female nominee might be more likely than not.  Given that there are currently twice as many men as women on the court (six to three), he may be reluctant to increase the imbalance.

If Obama changes it up and picks a man next, one option might be Judge Merrick Garland, of the D.C. Court of Appeals.  He has also been considered for past vacancies.  At age 59, he has served on his court since his 1997 appointment by President Clinton.  

Judge Garland graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law and he was a clerk for former Supreme Court Justice William Brennan.  He worked in the Justice Department in the 1990s and oversaw the Oklahoma City bombing and Unabomber prosecutions.  

As a moderate and consensus-builder type candidate, Garland might be a logical choice if a Republican appointee leaves the bench.  The nomination of a very liberal choice to replace a departing conservative might create a fierce confirmation battle in the Senate.  Without a filibuster-proof majority of 60 or greater Senate Democrats, any Obama appointee will need to receive at least a few affirmative votes from Republican Senators.  Given his desire to pursue the “grand bargain” deficit deal, immigration reform and other second term initiatives, President Obama might not want to pick that fight.  He might reserve any more liberal appointment for a replacement of Justice Ginsburg or another Democratic-appointed justice.

Another judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals that has been considered for vacancies during Obama’s first term and might be a future appointee is Sidney Thomas, age 59.  He joined the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal when he was appointed by Clinton in 1996.  Other possible male appointees include Judge Paul Watford, of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Sri Srinivasan, who has been nominated, but not yet confirmed, to the D.C. Court of Appeals.  

Judge Watford is African-American, a young judge in only his mid-40s and a former clerk for Justice Ginsburg.  Judge Srinivasan, who is also in his mid-40s, was born in India and is the current U.S. Principal Deputy Solicitor General.

Of course, a change in the composition of the court would have little importance without it hearing new cases of importance.  The next several years are likely to have more than a few of them.     

Roughly a month ago, on October 10th, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin.  The case revisits the constitutionality of affirmative action in higher education.  

In 2003, the court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy at my old law school, the University of Michigan.  In that case, the moderate Justice O’Connor joined the progressive members of the court to provide a 5 to 4 decision that upheld the limited consideration of race in admissions decisions.  With the 2006 replacement of O’Connor with the extreme conservative Justice Alito, most court followers speculate that the practice of affirmative action in college admissions will be ended with this decision.  The expected decision may also have future implications on affirmative action programs in police force hiring, teacher recruitment, and a variety of other areas.

In October, the court also heard cases that involve the constitutionality of the death penalty for the mentally ill convicted of capital crimes, the use of a narcotics sniffing dog without a warrant, and U.S. wiretaps on Americans while abroad.  

On the heels of several election day victories for same-sex marriage equality, the highest court may be poised to accept one or more cases that challenge the constitutionality of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.  The court may also hear the appeal of the California court decision to strike down Proposition 8, the 2008 voter initiative that banned same-sex marriage within the state.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 may also be under attack.  The passage of strict voter ID laws in various states rightfully received a fair bit of attention during the recent election season.  The motivation of many of their Republication proponents was exposed by the pre-election prediction by the Pennsylvania House majority leader that their new voter ID law “is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the [presidency].”  The voter suppression law was subsequently blocked by a court prior to the election.  

Similar laws in Florida, Texas and South Carolina were struck down by the U.S. Department of Justice which reviews the voting laws of many ex-Confederate states under to the Voting Rights Act.  One or more legal challenges to the Act may soon make their way to the highest court.

And then, of course, there is the 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.  It is probably a safe assumption that the effects of money, and super PACs, during the 2012 campaign did little to weaken the decision’s dissent of the four members of the court’s progressive wing.  If an Obama nominee were to replace one of the 5 conservative justices, the court might elect to hear a new case that would present the question whether to preserve the decision in Citizens United.  

During the court’s last term, Justices Ginsburg and Breyer urged their colleagues to accept the appeal of American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock, a campaign finance case from Montana in which that state’s supreme court rejected the Citizens United’s decision.  Ginsburg announced that “Montana’s experience, and experience elsewhere since this court’s decision in [Citizens United] make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations ‘do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption,’” quoting a criteria included in the Montana court’s majority opinion.  She continued, “a petition for certiorari will give the court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway.”

Despite the efforts of Ginsburg and Breyer, a majority of the court voted to reverse the ruling in the Montana case and to again permit the unlimited spending of corporate money in political campaigns in Montana.  The question remains whether a future Supreme Court, with its future members, will make the same decision.  That’s how close Citizens United is …

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  VRA is done. (4+ / 0-)

    I'd predicted this some time before, it's pretty much nonsensical to allow Voter ID only in states which aren't part of 4b of the VRA.

    It's possible they might just strike 4b instead of 5, but it seems unlikely to me.

    I'd think Ginsburg and Breyer may retire, and that'll be it.  I don't care to speculate on who might die in office.

  •  I bet Thurgood woulda tried his damnedest to live (7+ / 0-)

    longer if he had known his successor would be such a counter-factual freakshow.

    "See? I'm not a racist! I have a black friend!"

    by TheHalfrican on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 11:46:04 AM PST

  •  Senate could flip in 2014; get out now! (4+ / 0-)

    I hope Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn't so selfish and self-centered as to put her own goal of 'beating' Brandeis' tenure above what is best for the entire United States of America!

    The GOP could retake the Senate in 2014, and block the appointment of Obama's preferred justices in Senate confirmation hearings.

    Thank you VERY much, Justice Ginsburg, for your distinguished service to our country. You have done a fantastic job, been a path-breaker and role-model. Here's your hat; what's your hurry?

  •  we should pack the court whilst we have the chance (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sharon Wraight

    once Reid reforms the senate rules to ban the filibuster, we'll be able to force through any justices we want. i would suggest doing it

    we have some huge cases that are comming in the next four years, and we need to make sure we win our way.

    i would also suggest that we look for nonlawyers/judges, too. some of our best justices never sat on the bench before becomming justices. that, and they will be more likely to toe the line when it comes to cases, like federalism, guns etc.

  •  Role of Chief Justice (0+ / 0-)

    I believe it's the role of the Chief Justice to set the agenda for the weekly meetings where the court decides which cases to hear. There can be input from the other justices but my impression is that the Chief Justice has sway on this. If this is the case, it seems to me unlikely that Roberts would bring up Citizens United again any time soon.

    Does anyone know more about this?

  •  I want someone young, maybe a Fetal-American. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sharon Wraight, wdrath, blueyedace2

    Just a thought.

    "I was a big supporter of waterboarding" - Dick Cheney 2/14/10

    by Bob Love on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 11:55:43 AM PST

  •  My recommended choice would be Hillary Clinton. (0+ / 0-)

    Ideally this would occur when Ginsburg retires in 2-3 years.  The only real downside that I see to this is that she is probably a shoo-in for President in 2016 if she chooses to run and I would hate to miss that.

    Good Sense is Seldom Common

  •  We should impeach Thomas and Scalia in 2015. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Words In Action, wdrath

    Need the House back for that, but there is PLENTY of evidence of impropriety -- Thomas with income from corporate interests, and Scalia with Cheney.

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 12:09:06 PM PST

    •  polecat - even if you had a Dem House (4+ / 0-)

      you couldn't get 50 votes to impeach Thomas or Scalia. There is no way you would get a majority of House members to vote to start an investigation and the President would put a stop to it if it was even suggested.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 12:15:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  why would the president stop (0+ / 0-)

        an investigation that would give him two more justices to nominate? that seems counterproductive.

        and if the president cracked the whip on a flipped house, we could get those bastards out.

        •  sporks - for two reasons (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coffeetalk, Pirogue, johnny wurster

          The President does not believe that impeachment is an appropriate remedy for Supreme Court justices who have legal views he does not agree with. In addition, he does not want to further politicize the Court. The US has never impeached, and removed, a member of the SCOTUS and Scalia and Thomas will not be the first.  

          With the exception of one possible issue regarding a memorial to Thomas in his hometown I have never read anything from a non-biased source that the behavior of either Scalia or Thomas would rise to the level of an impeachable offense. I think that nearly all of the Dems in the House and Senate would agree with me. I have read many articles, and certainly diaries here at DKOS, that have outlined events that partisans feel should be grounds for an impeachment. However, even here at DKOS our most respected lawyers on this site have shot them all down.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 01:13:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  the law really doesn't matter (0+ / 0-)

            unlike in actual courts, all it takes is two votes to impeach a justice. one to begin impeachment in the house, and another to remove the justice in the senate. thats it.

            furthermore, i highly doubt the president would say no to impeach any of the 5 who are trying to obstruct his agenda.  he's a brilliant politician, and i just can't see him being this dumb.

            •  sporks - while it is true (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coffeetalk, johnny wurster

              that impeachment is a political issue, and not a criminal one, for the first removal of a Supreme Court Justice in our nation's history members of Congress would require something that was so black and white that no one would think of it as a partisan Democratic attack on conservative Justices. It is not dumb for the President to respect the history of the Court and that members, once confirmed by the Senate, serve for life even if you don't like their decisions.

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 01:48:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  He's a Constitutional Scholar. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Pirogue, johnny wurster

              There's no way he would support something so damaging to the country.

              The last time a Kangaroo Court was convened to impeach a president, it turned much of the country bitter.  We don't need that.

              I have no objection to investigating the hell out of them, and Thomas looks ripe for charges, but until something concrete arises ... no way.

              I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

              by trumpeter on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 01:52:15 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  The idea of impeaching a sitting Justice (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          johnny wurster

          based on onerous rulings is an idea worthy only of Tea Party hot-heads and is a precedent that would have serious consequences for democracy. Our whole system would become unstable if we engaged in impeacment wars between opposing ideolgies. It should also be noted that it is a war that we would not win given the ideological leaning of the country at large.

          These ideas are best relegated to the fever swamp of wingnut demagoguery.

          The world is a den of thieves and night is falling. -Ingmar Bergman

          by Pirogue on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 03:07:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Scalia's rulings WRT Cheney are out of bounds? (0+ / 0-)

            Hunting bros before Constitution?

            Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
            I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
            —Spike Milligan

            by polecat on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 05:23:17 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Absent hard evidence of direct collusion (0+ / 0-)

              I would say it is out of bounds.

              For proveable impropreities short of actual collusion I wouild have no problem with a Congressional censure. But some kind of overt impropriety would have to be demonstrated, not just fratranization. I think his failure to recuse himself would be cause for public embarassment but I don't think there is any hard and fast rule that requires recusal or that would raise such failure to the level of an actionable offense.

              If we tried to impeach for an offense that was less than egregious we would be raising the window for open season on justices. This would lead to a mounting series of Constitutional crises akin to the sort of thing that typically happens in unstable third-world governments. Democracy requires a modicum of confidence in the mechanisms of governance. It would not be a healthy turn of events.

              The world is a den of thieves and night is falling. -Ingmar Bergman

              by Pirogue on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 05:46:18 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  I'd go with Kamala. No one over 55. (0+ / 0-)

    Purging predominantly minority voters and requiring them to present IDs to vote in the face of VIRTUALLY NON-EXISTENT VOTER FRAUD is RACISM! I hereby declare all consenting Republicans RACISTS until they stand up and object to these practices!

    by Words In Action on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 12:25:36 PM PST

  •  I want younger justices. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I want Obama to nominate someone in their forties.  We need justices who will be on the bench for a long time, and not have to leave during Republican years.  I understand this must happen sometimes due to medical reasons, but it shouldn't due to old age or weariness of the job.  

    Also, can we get someone idealogically like John Paul Stevens back?  He was my favorite justice, and I just don't think Kagen has the same views of the constitution.

  •  Well, one good thing Scalia did was to exist... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ...during the 2012 Massachusetts Senate debates so that that Scottie Brown could cite him as an "ideal justice."

    I'd have to believe that this finished off his campaign.

    I'm not from Massachusetts, but I did happen to catch that.

    Other than that I can't say I am fond of any feature of the continued existance of "Fat Tony" Scalia.

  •  If we want Scalia & Thomas to resign, just invite (0+ / 0-)

    them to the Oval Office and tell them Obama's "real" birth certificate is in the corner. They'd keep running round and round until they were too tired to go back to the Supreme Court ever again. {buttaboom}

    (I know it's an old joke, and some people will want to lecture me that these two are not confirmed birthers. But, both regularly speak to lobbyists and/or political groups of highly wingnutty people who very likely do hold some of these views. So, I don't think it unfair to guess they harbor sympathies for birtherism, at least for humor purposes.)

    Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

    by tekno2600 on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 02:26:14 PM PST

  •  I can't imagine Scalia retiring during (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    President Obama's second term. Justices are VERY aware of the political party of the President who will replace them.  Legendary liberal Justice William O. Douglas held on far  too long (even after he was largely incapacitated due to a stroke) because he did not want Nixon to name his replacement.

    I suspect the only justice President Obama will get to replace this term is Justice Ginsburg.

  •  Thank you for this (0+ / 0-)

    most informative summary.

    I fully agree with you on the importance of the upcoming choices for Supreme Court Justice. We live in a time when the religious right is making a concerted attack on separation of church and state in an effort that has enjoyed much more success than is generally recognized.

    The reason they have been able to fly under the radar is that they are still in a phase of conflict when they are marshalling their forces. Their chief victory at the moment is the power they have amassed on SCOTUS with four ultra-conservative, religously oriented justices leaving them one justice away from holding a solid majority and owning the court.

    Now, I am not going to tell you that there is a well directed conspiracy by the religious right, but I will say that they operate under a mutually recognized agenda to turn the country into a conservative Christian nation and they very well understand the strategic importance of the Supreme Court to the success of their crusade.

    High on their wish list is a court that will rule to their liking on the issues of personhood and reproductive rights. It would not be surprising, should they gain a majority of hardliners on the court, to see an end run around the whole abortion issue by declaring that a fetus enjoys the equal protection of the law justified by an argument that any inception of personhood later than conception is arbitrary and thusly would constitute a denial of equal protection.

    They also wish to institute prayer in public schools going so far as to allow these institutions to engage in religious instruction.  This is not as outlandish as one may think given that it was routine practice within living memory. Of course  they want to mandate the teaching of creationist ideas about biology and geology, in the end giving them precedence over sound scientific instrution. And they would also have the government fund religious schools with public money. These are all aspirations that would be greatly abetted by a Supreme Court with a neo-conservative, Christianist majority.

    Of course they are horrified by the seismic shift in the public attitude toward gay rights, especially with regard to marriage. They would see it as their duty to God to employ the Supreme Court in every way possible to forestall the inevitable full enfranchisement of our LGBT citizens.

    Of course this fails to mention those threats represented by a neo-conservative court that fall outside the immediate agenda of the religious right. First and foremost is the question of campaign finance laws which were brought home most appallingly by Citizen's United. And then we have the issue of voter suppression laws which will probably be challenged in the courts and will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.

    Finally we shouldn't forget issues of immigrant harassment programs and minority rights, death penalty issues and sane gun regulation.

    These are all questions that will be settled by the Supreme Court in the coming decades and makes me wonder why more attention is not paid to the question of judicial appointments when focusing on the importance of presidential elections. This is especially critical given the tendency of conservative presidents to nominate well screened young justices who will likely influence the court for a generation.

    Anyway, I got carried away here, but thanks for your tremendous effort. An awesome diary that I would love to see on the most recommended lists.

    The world is a den of thieves and night is falling. -Ingmar Bergman

    by Pirogue on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 04:33:54 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site