- Moderator
- #1
Offline
I've been listening to the Radiolab "More Perfect" podcast for a few weeks, so I'm enthralled with the history of the Supreme Court right now. In all honestly, there are tabs with a Google search for "most important Supreme Court Justices" and "Home-Run Hitters of the Supreme Court" open on my browser right now. In all of that, I've noticed that in the ongoing campaign, Justice Scalia's vacancy has largely been pushed to the back burner.
This is mostly for our conservative-leaning members. Their thoughts are the ones I'm most interested in because they have, or at least are perceived to have, the most to lose or gain by who is named to the Court. That said, all votes and opinions are welcome.
If you were given a choice right now, which would you take and why? And what do you think the stakes are with this latest appointment? What could be the next "big ticket" issue to fall?
On the one hand, by confirming Merrick Garland, the Republicans would be begrudgingly giving Obama one last piece to add to his legacy. On the flip side, though, Garland is moderate. Prior to his nomination, he'd been praised by conservative lawmakers. He's not a Scalia conservative, but he's not a Ginsburg liberal, either. At least with him, you know what you're getting.
On the other hand is the unknown. I'd imagine as a conservative, the best case scenario would be Trump winning the presidency and nominating his own replacement. The worst case scenario, though, HAS to be Clinton winning and then nominating someone younger and more liberal that will serve on the court long after she's left office. Combined with other possible openings during the next president's term(s), that's a risky roll of the dice.
This is mostly for our conservative-leaning members. Their thoughts are the ones I'm most interested in because they have, or at least are perceived to have, the most to lose or gain by who is named to the Court. That said, all votes and opinions are welcome.
If you were given a choice right now, which would you take and why? And what do you think the stakes are with this latest appointment? What could be the next "big ticket" issue to fall?
On the one hand, by confirming Merrick Garland, the Republicans would be begrudgingly giving Obama one last piece to add to his legacy. On the flip side, though, Garland is moderate. Prior to his nomination, he'd been praised by conservative lawmakers. He's not a Scalia conservative, but he's not a Ginsburg liberal, either. At least with him, you know what you're getting.
On the other hand is the unknown. I'd imagine as a conservative, the best case scenario would be Trump winning the presidency and nominating his own replacement. The worst case scenario, though, HAS to be Clinton winning and then nominating someone younger and more liberal that will serve on the court long after she's left office. Combined with other possible openings during the next president's term(s), that's a risky roll of the dice.
