This is what I was afraid of. I think that Obama’s spending policies are spectacular folly and his foreign policy needs to mature just in order to be called naive. I have other policy differences with the man, but they are differences. Much of what Obama is doing can be reversed or slowed down if the country so chooses by electing a Republican congress in 2010 or a new President in 2012. Other things are harder to reverse.
The news broke this evening that Justice David Souter plans to retire at the end of this Supreme Court term. This has been my greatest fear. Nominees to the SCOTUS can take decades to undo and in the meantime millions of lives will be taken by abortion. Obama has, in his first (and hopefully only) four years the chance to shape the court for years by solidifying its liberal activist base or heaven forbid extending it.
A Souter retirement was not widely expected but now Obama will have the chance to fill that vacancy with a liberal hardliner that will sit on the court for years. Obama will likely have the chance to replace justices Ginsburg and Stevens as well some time soon. While these justices were all solidly in the liberal camp, at least on the subject of Roe v Wade, it represents an opportunity lost for any future pro-life president.
As I said, I disagree with Obama on many things, but my strident opposition to him has always been about the judges. Tax policy can be changed with hopefully no more harm than a few less dollars in the pocket. You can’t get the babies back.
This is going to be a very bad year for babies. Please pray for the continued health of justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas. We need these four to hang on and hopefully Obama will nominate only very old people.
Update: Check out Legal Insurrection on how Arlen Specter’s party switch may have given Republicans a trump card to block an unacceptable replacement for Souter.
Ironically, Specter’s defection may give Republicans the ability to filibuster judicial nominees at the Judiciary Committee level, so the nominees never get out of committee. It’s a fascinating thought. Check it out here.
May 1, 2009 at 1:41 pm
I really wish people would simply give up this pipe dream of a “conservative” Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade. It is not going to happen. When Scalia stated to the world that “abortion is not prohibited in the constitution” (and he’s WRONG there) that was pretty much the death knell for that strategy.
There needs to be a change in public opinion and the entire moral compass of the US regarding the culture of death that has been adopted. And the supreme court is anything but a moral compass.
May 1, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Not feeling much better. Specter is still a Republican, not switching officially until he runs for re-election, right? He’ll stay RINO to get the nominees through committee. And/or vote with the Dems to confirm. Or they’ll change the rules. Or some other closet RINO will cooperate.
Obama will get three nominees in the next three years. Just replacing old liberals with younger liberals, but still, it stinks.
And I agree with Duesdonat, I don’t think there’s much hope of overturning Roe, but there was hope of keeping certain restrictions in place and mitigating the effects of FOCA, no?
May 1, 2009 at 6:29 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
May 1, 2009 at 6:30 pm
If John McCain were president, we would be choosing our next pro-life SCOTUS justice.
Thank you, Obama Catholics!
You think we can’t overturn Roe. That’s what they said about Dred Scott.
As Fred Barnes recently said, “things change. And they change for one reason: because people change them.”
May 2, 2009 at 12:07 am
Paul – grab a history book. The supreme court never overturned Dred Scott. Bad analogy there, and you actually validated my point. It was in fact overruled by the 14th amendment; an act of congress.
My point here is looking to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade is just not a viable option. All the components we need are currently in the constitution. What needs to happen is a stricter definition on “citizenship”, applying it to any person(s) which are conceived and would through natural progress be born. Currently, the constitution simply says “born”. However, it isn’t a very far jump to include those conceived in there as well. And this would protect the unborn.
But again, this would need to be done through the bottom up, starting with the people submitting this to congress and then running its course. People waiting for the Surpeme court might as well be watching paint dry.