U.S. Supreme Court
Liberals Want Their Own Antonin Scalia
Posted Jul 21, 2008, 06:44 am CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Liberal activists are seeking a justice who can articulate a left-leaning vision of constitutional interpretation.
“They want their own Antonin Scalia,” reports the Washington Post. “Or rather, an anti-Scalia, an individual who can easily articulate a liberal interpretation of the Constitution, offer a quick sound bite and be prepared to mix it up with conservative activists beyond the marble and red velvet of the Supreme Court.”
Some have suggested that Hillary Clinton could fulfill that role if Barack Obama wins the election and a justice resigns. For his part, Obama says he would support a “sensible” nominee in the mold of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and David H. Souter.
Ginsburg, at age 75, is one of the court’s two oldest justices. The other is John Paul Stevens, age 88.
Related Stories
- Detroit Mayor Sues to Stop Ouster Hearing, Claims Gov. is Biased
14 hours, 17 minutes ago - Utah AG’s New Website Posts Suspect Video, Sparks ACLU Complaint
Aug 28, 2008, 02:13 pm CDT - Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of KPMG Indictments Due to Prosecutor Tactics
Aug 28, 2008, 12:59 pm CDT - 45 Years after King’s ‘Dream,’ Obama’s Nomination is a Reality
Aug 28, 2008, 11:57 am CDT
Related Topics
Commenting has expired on this post.
Comments
Posted by logos - 1 month, 1 week, 1 day, 23 hours, 2 minutes ago
Difficult, since “liberals” have no consistent approach to constitutional interpretation, thus defying articulation. “Because I think it’s fair” is not witty.
Posted by sogol - 1 month, 1 week, 1 day, 19 hours, 17 minutes ago
It makes more sense than “Because you’re wrong.” That’s not even logic.
Posted by BigKapono - 1 month, 1 week, 1 day, 2 hours, 21 minutes ago
Originalism = another way to justify why I think I’m right
It’s hard to overcome the fact that Brown v. Board of Education would never had happened had we truly stayed “originalist”. Times change and views change...therefore the law should change as well.
Posted by dude - 1 month, 1 week, 1 day, 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
Hillary Clinton, U.S. Supreme Court Justice?!! Are you kidding me? What court has she presided over? What opinions has she written? Just because you have a law degree does not make you qualified to be a jurist- especially the US Supreme Court. She is a politician.
It seems that her fans are trying to find her “something.” Her supporters have tried to hijack Obama into picking her as the VP. Her supporters want her to be the Senate majority leader.
Here’s the bottom line: HILLARY LOST! What’s ironic is that her campaign loss is akin to the elder Bush when he was running against Bill Clinton. The elder Bush didn’t take Bill seriously- I’m a war hero and I just won a war; I put Dan Rather in his place; there’s no way this upstart can beat me!
Hillary thought no one could touch her. She had the money, the connections, the name, and all the pundits backing her. But she didn’t understand the election process. Hillary didn’t seem to know that the delegates are split in the primaries. Her past haunted her. Hillary voted for the war AND she did NOT review the paperwork that was sent to the Senate on the war before she vote. She let Obama win a tring of primaries caucuses. Doesn’t she know that people love to vote for a winner? These are just some of the missteps that she made.
Now they suggest she be on the US Supreme Court? Once again I ask what opinions has she written? Over what court has she resided? I know that appointments to the US Supreme Court are political BUT POLITICIANS DO NOT BELONG ON THE US SUPREME COURT! True Jurists belong on the US Supreme Court.