What we’ll get if Justice Stevens retires:
Should pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens decide in the coming days or weeks to retire, three potential replacements have been named as the most likely candidates to replace him. Two of the potential nominees for President Barack Obama are longtime pro-abortion activists.
The most talked about potential nominees include U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan and federal appellate judges Diane Wood and Merrick Garland.
Those names have been in the news before and a White House official confirmed Sunday to Bloomberg News that those names are prominent on Obama’s list of replacements.
The problem for the pro-life movement is Kagan and Wood are extreme nominees and pro-life groups would likely strongly oppose their nominations.
This is part of the cost of losing, fellow conservatives. While Stevens is a mindless, pro-abortion vote on the Court and thus his replacement won’t change the dynamic, what we’re going to get is a young, vigorous anti-constitutionalist fool to replace an old one. We’ll be burdened, essentially, with Stevens for several more decades. Keep that in mind the next time the GOP nominee isn’t conservative “enough”.
Of course, there could be a cure for this when President Pal….errmmm… I mean, when the next Republican President gets elected: pack the court. Sure, I know that FDR tried it and failed, but there really is no reason for 9 Justices as opposed to, say, 11 or 13. We have to drown out these judicial activists some how – what better way than to add four judges who obey the law?
With 13 Justices (and a rational argument can be made for a larger number of appellate courts to handle our vastly increased judicial workload) the four or five liberal justices could write all the dissenting opinions they want. They could assert there is a right to private, cherry ice cream in the Constitution, for all we’ll care – the 7 justices we’ll be sure are conservative will be too busy enforcing the law for us to care.
And the real beauty of it – the rationale for 13 Justices is the fact that we really do need more appellate courts to handle the vastly increased judicial work load. And why do we have this work load? Because liberal lawyers are suing everything to smithereens. We can make judicial liberalism the author of its own destruction.
Cool, huh?
Blogs For Victory 