Why is that Republican presidents appoint conservative, liberal, and moderate justices and associate judges, but Democrat presidents nominate only liberal judges?
Republican presidents nominated:
I’m not including Blackmun because he began as a conservative.
White, appointed by JFK, might be the possible exception to the rule.
How are you, Habee? You pose another good question.
It’s called “stacking the court” and it is a time-honored tradition exercised by both Presidents and the Congress to achieve political objectives by altering the make-up of the court. Your labels may not reveal the real purposes behind their nominations because justices are appointed with a mission. Remember the Bush-Gore election was decided by a Supreme Court that interpreted the Constitution along strict party lines!
Tweaking the court not only involves appointments, but also impeachment and changing the number of sitting justices. During Barack Obama’s bid for the White House, Jean Edward Smith observed in a New York Times op-ed piece printed in July 2007, “If the current five-man majority persists in thumbing its nose at popular values, the election of a Democratic president and Congress could provide a corrective. It requires only a majority vote in both houses to add a justice or two. Chief Justice John Roberts and his conservative colleagues might do well to bear in mind that the roll call of presidents who have used this option includes not just Roosevelt but also Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and Grant.” (1)
If Presidents can not replace Justices to achieve a goal, they can always, with the support of Congress, add a couple more.
Hi, Quill. I'm not sure I'm following you. If the purpose is to "stack the court" with appointees from "your side," why didn't conservative presidents always appoint conservative justices?
Good day, Habee.
Political labels are convenient modifiers when applied to large groups or broad spectra of issues. However, I am one who believes they become increasingly less reliable for identifying or predicting attitudes and opinions when they are applied to smaller and smaller sets of people and/or issues. When applied to a single person or issue, they become hasty generalizations that are almost useless. Therefore, it is impossible for me to transfer a label attached to a specific issue to someone who supports that issue and vice versa.
I do not expect a President and his Supreme Court nominees to always agree on all issues just because they share the same political label. What matters to the President, I think, is how the nominee’s perspective on certain issues will counter or advance the court's leaning. This is why I said labels do not reveal the real purpose behind a nomination.
Let me put it another way. If I sometimes agree with Democrats, sometimes agree with Republicans, and always vote for a Democrat, am I acting like a liberal or a conservative? Now that I’m wearing a label, how does that predict how I think? Suppose I live on a lake that is being polluted by an industrial giant. If I then vote against big business on environmental issues, can you predict how I stand on climate change? A Supreme Court justice who favors Federal unemployment benefits might be a liberal, a socialist, a Libertarian with an unemployed son-in-law, or an ultra-conservative with a conscience. Go figure.
I hope this clarifies my post about court appointees. If it’s still not clear, at least you know what I think about political labels.
Because, contrary to the general perception, Republicans try to view with a perspective of fairness in judging Justices. Democrats so not. Very simple and thanks for pointing to it.
by jiberish8 years ago
Forget about your party affiliation for a minute and consider your upbringing, and your present views, are you more conservative in your thinking, more liberal, and why? How does this effect your take on the...
by Susan Reid2 years ago
excerpted from Liberals pride themselves on being tolerant. Are they really just suckers?"Does fear and intolerance actually work better? I find it interesting (not surprising) that research actually shows...
by Scott Bateman14 months ago
Well, yes. The answer is obvious.1) They oppose background checks and other gun laws so mentally unstable people can buy assault rifles and commit mass murders like in Orlando and Connecticut.2) They favor multi...
by mega17 years ago
Or does it just seem that way because the Democrats/liberals are less vocal about it? Lately it seems to me there are many many more conservatives and their agendas being pushed at us. I usually keep away...
by Credence22 years ago
Ted Cruz and much of the Conservative community have been sore losers, after 2 recent Supreme Court Decisions "threw them under the bus". See brief article below:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/2...
by Barefootfae4 years ago
http://daily-download.com/chelsea-clint … ournalist/Of course. I have no doubt Chelsea is a wonderful girl.I also have no doubt she is hideously unqualified. When the time comes that won't matter.Just like the...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.