In May, I mused that Kagan is probably a sacrificial lamb, and that Obama will end up nominating someone else–perhaps even more liberal than she is–in her stead.
She’s now looking like a slightly more polished, left-leaning version of Harriet Miers.
Right now, I’d say she will probably get the confirmation. But it may very well be close.
The latest SCOTUS nominee–Elena Kagan–has enough problems to irritate both sides of the political spectrum. My take: she is a diversion, and will be a sacrificial lamb.
Obama’s next pick will probably be more liberal than Kagan, but–unless he loses most of his support among Senate Democrats–will be confirmed.
And that is as it should be. As I have long-maintained: Presidents should have a wide latitude with their court appointments. I may not like most of those appointments, but elections have consequences.
Of course, it is possible that potential fallout in November may drive Obama to pick a more centrist nominee, but–seriously–this may be his last opportunity to make a lasting mark on the country. His administration may be over in 2 years.
If he loses both houses, his hands will be tied. If that happens, there’s still hope for him: he could, like Clinton, go for the ride, let the House and Senate make the cuts, and then take the credit for the benefits.
That worked for Clinton in 1996, so there is no reason to believe that Obama can’t do the same in 2012. Especially given the weak field of GOP hopefuls.
But Kagan will undoubtedly fall short.
Considering that he replaced William O. Douglas, John Paul Stevens was probably an improvement to SCOTUS. That said, he was a looney whose appointment was one of Ford’s worst acts as President. Sadly, President Guevara will be picking the replacement. HT: FOX News.
04/03/2007: The same group of winners who handed us the Kelo decision–which effectively destroys free markets by allowing government even greater carte blanche to seize private assets–have now given federal government the authority to seize assets “to save the earth”.
This is why Czech President Viclav Klaus rightfully called radical environmentalism “the new communism”. Now, we have government seizing assets from citizens to appease the tree-lickers.
07/09/2006: Al Mohler, in his latest blog, reflects on Peter Berkowitz’s assessment of the direction of the Supreme Court (SCOTUS), and its implications for Christians.
Berkowitz, from a legal standpoint, is right on the money. SCOTUS, since the 1960s–arguably before then–has been moving in the direction of individual freedoms with respect to issues tied to sexuality. The decisions regarding contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut), abortion (Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, Planned Parenthood v. Akron Ohio, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey), and homosexuality (Lawrence v. Texas) seem to follow a consistent pattern, irrespective of the other quagmires they create.
Berkowitz also points out [correctly] that SCOTUS is prepared to legalize gay marriage. The arguments against it–from a pure legal standpoint–are weak. The argument advanced by many conservatives–we cannot have gay marriage because heterosexual marriage is a long-engrained historical institution of civilization–carries no weight. (The same, after all, could be said for slavery.)
I’m not trying to defend gay marriage–from a Biblical standpoint, I’m against it–but if you toss the Judeo-Christian foundation out the window, which we have, then anything goes.
In his assessment of Berkowitz, Mohler has this to say:
At this point the Christian worldview offers a much-needed corrective. The Bible grounds human freedom not in a sweeping claim of human autonomy, but in the fact that human beings are made in the image of God. Thus, the biblical concept of freedom comes with limits set from the very beginning by our Creator. We are not given the right, as Anthony Kennedy so sweepingly expressed, to define our own concept of existence “and of the mystery of human life.”
Peter Berkowitz’s analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the culture’s commitment to an ever-expanding understanding of freedom should help Christians to think seriously about the true nature of freedom and its limitations. His article will certainly inform the way we understand today’s cultural conflicts over issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage–but it should also serve as a catalyst for how we should understand a Christian description of human freedom. As this article makes clear, we now face two rival visions of human freedom and its meaning. The future of our culture depends upon which vision shapes the policies of the future.
Sadly, this is where Mohler is right, but futile.
Fact is, even conservative Christians are not on the same page with respect to the Scriptures, human freedom, and government’s role in our lives.
I tend to be more libertarian–I want all states completely out of the marriage licensing racket altogether, and want issues such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research to be taken away from the federal government and resolved by citizens in the several states.
On the other hand, many conservative Christians–such as Mohler and D. James Kennedy–probably differ with me on that matter, preferring a strong federal government with respect to these issues.
I tend to look at federal government as too large and bloated and a continuous usurper of our freedoms: if all these issues must be resolved at the federal level, then relying on five SCOTUS votes leaves us with tenuous freedoms indeed. On the other hand, many conservative Christians look to federal government to resolve the great issues of the day.
I guess the larger question is this: Is the Church prepared to address these issues among Her own ranks?
I’d be interested to know what Dr. Mohler has to say to that effect.
03/28/2006: Well, considering what he has to put up with, I can’t say that I blame him.
03/01/2006: Mississippi, following South Dakota’s lead, is now looking to ban most abortions. If this becomes law in Mississippi–and it will if it reaches Republican governor Haley Barbour’s desk–we will be seeing another potential showdown with the Supreme Court (SCOTUS).
Like Cal Thomas pointed out yesterday, this is a risky approach by two pro-life states. If these laws make it to SCOTUS–and get struck down–then stare decisis would seal the fate of the pro-life movement for at least three more decades. Currently, SCOTUS is at least 5-4 in favor of Roe. The risk: a 7-2 vote.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito are rookies who are untested on this issue. Sure, they were pro-life during the Reagan years, but that was over 20 years ago. They may easily have morphed into looneys on abortion, as O’Connor, Souter and Kennedy did. Or they may have moved to the right, as Thomas and Scalia have done.
The real issue: if Roberts and Alito are anti-Roe, do they have the ability to win Souter or Kennedy over toward their way of thinking? If not, both laws will go down in flames, by 5-4 votes.
There is an opening: existing legal inconsistencies created by Roe. These are of the nature that a pro-abortion Justice could see enough inconsistency such that–while one may support abortion, such a Justice could support remanding the issue to the states for democratic and legislative resolution.
If Roberts and Alito are able to convince one or more of the pro-Roe Justices of these problems, then Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton are history and the real battle will just be starting.
We will soon get a look at the direction of SCOTUS on this issue, when the Scott Peterson murder case makes its way to the High Court.
To uphold the Peterson death sentence, SCOTUS could strike down–or significantly weaken–Roe. Otherwise, they will have to strike down one of the murder convictions–that of Laci Peterson’s unborn child–and throw out the death sentence. If they uphold the death sentence, then Roe could be on the way out.
How Alito and Roberts address this–and the partial birth abortion cases–will provide insights into where the battle over Roe is heading. If SCOTUS doesn’t budge in those cases, then this is very bad news for South Dakota, Mississippi, and the entire pro-life movement.
However, attempting legislation such as South Dakota and Mississippi have done–at this time–is extremely risky.
02/01/2006: Feminista leader Kim Gandy is really in a tizzy over the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. She took to cursing over the airwaves! 
Hey Kim: if you’re gonna talk that way you might want to get a contract with Sirius so you can get it going with Howard Stern.
01/31/2006: In a close vote (58-42), the Senate confirmed Samuel Alito as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court (SCOTUS). This was the closest vote since Clarence Thomas, in the wake of the Anita Hill debacle, secured confirmation by a vote of 52-48.
In this case, 4 Democrats voted for Alito. One Republican–Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island–voted against Alito. The lone independent–Jim Jeffords–also opposed Alito.
While most of the debate has centered around the abortion issue, Alito will likely have little impact, as there are still five pro-Roe justices on SCOTUS.
However, Alito could have a significant effect on business and corporate cases, in which support can sway considerably. In addition, Alito would be instrumental in sure-to-be-addressed cases involving the war against Islammunists. Alito would also be a factor in keeping gun grabbers at bay.
If one of the five pro-Roe justices (Stevens, Breyer, Ginsberg, Kennedy, or Souter) retires or dies, the next SCOTUS nominee will provoke the mother of all political fights.
Another Challenge to Roe v. Wade?
A man who intentionally gave his girlfriend a drug that induced abortion–twice–is now facing FIRST DEGREE MURDER charges.
It can’t be murder if the unborn child is not a person. SCOTUS needs to set the record straight here. Why do we allow women and doctors to conspire to murder their children while threatening a man with life in prison who murders that same child without the woman’s consent?
In both cases the child dies. Why is one legal and the other not?