A major issue for which the President can have
his biggest impact was left out of the "domestic policy" debate. It
goes virtually unnoticed during this, and many other, Presidential
elections. Over the next four years, the President will very likely have
the opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court Justice (if not more than
one). The "ideological" makeup of the Supreme Court may very well hang
in the balance. If there is a move in
either direction, it will have an enormous influence on law and society
for decades to come, long after the next President has left the Oval
Office.
Voting for the Presidential candidate most likely to nominate judges who will uphold the Constitution's original meaning, who will respect the rule of law and our nation's Basic Charter by looking first and foremost to the original principles actually enshrined in the document, who view the judiciary as restricted by the role of a judge limited by his obligation to render rulings justified by the text and history of particular Constitutional provisions, in the mold of a Justice Clarence Thomas (as opposed to a Kagan, Sotomayor, or for that matter a Roberts), is more than enough reason alone to vote for Mitt Romney.
Of course if you want a Constitution in which the whole notion of federal enumerated powers is a farce, in which the originally envisioned federal governmental structure is not protected, in which new "rights" are invented at a whim with every passing decision, in which judges render rulings arbitrarily in line with their politically preferred outcomes, in which an unpredictable "living Constitution" fullthroatedly dominates the Court, and in which five unelected black-robed lawyers are accepted as oligarchic overlords unmoored from any original intent, then go ahead and cast your vote for Barack Obama.
But
either way, it's worthy of a few minutes at a Presidential debate on
"domestic policy" given all these aged Supreme Court Justices currently
on the bench. George
HW Bush appointed Clarence Thomas, one of the greatest achievements of his Presidency. And he was no libertarian/conservative landmark President.
The question is who is most likely to appoint a Thomas over the next four years? With Obama, it
is worse than a lost cause, we know full well the kind of justices he
appoints. With Mitt there is a shot. A shot worth voting for.
Tweet
RSS Feed (xml)