Ilya Somin has a sobering post comparing gun rights to property rights:
With very few exceptions, the effort to strengthen protection for property rights was categorically opposed by the Court’s liberal justices. Any property rights case that got to the Court almost starts with four guaranteed votes in favor of the government. This has two important effects.
First, any division in the ranks of the conservative justices is likely to be fatal for property rights in the case at issue. For example, Justice Anthony Kennedy voted with the liberal justices in Kelo and several other important property rights cases, leading to important setbacks for property supporters.
This is why we must vote McCain to keep Obama out of the oval office. McCain is far from perfect, but neither were the two Bush’s, which we would be facing a loss on Heller had it not been for electing them.
As with property rights, the ideological division on the Court also leaves any gains vulnerable to future reversal in the event that a Democratic president is elected. The liberal justices’ opposition to gun rights is also shared by the vast majority of liberal judges on the lower courts. If Obama (or any other Democrat) becomes president, they will likely appoint justices who share these views. Even if Obama does not make this issue a major priority in his nomination decisions, the fact that he will want to nominate justices who are liberal on other constitutional issues will ensure a strong likelihood that they would also embrace the dominant liberal position on this issue. This happened in the case property rights as well. Opposition to property rights was probably not a major factor in Clinton’s choice of Ginsburg and Breyer. Indeed, Clinton was among those who later vehemently denounced the Kelo decision. Nonetheless, these two justices turned out be property rights opponents (even in Kelo) precisely because Clinton did make a priority of appointing judges who are generally liberal, and such judges are likely to be anti-property rights.
Seriously, McCain sucks, except for the alternative. Let’s not get complacent here, or this day will be all for naught.
Eh, potentially we are looking at the next President getting maybe one pick for the Supreme Court, hopefully it will be John Paul Stevens who is nearly 90 years old, and is a liberal. Scalia is currently the oldest conservative on the court and at 72, lets pray that he lives a long healthy life.
Still, let’s not forget that it was Reagan who inflicted Sandra Day O’Conner and Anthony Kennedy on us, and it was Bush Sr. who gave us David Souter. Ford gave us John Paul Stevens. Given the fact that some of the most liberal supreme court justices have been nominated by Republicans, reinforces my conviction that there is no way that McCain is going to be our point man for tipping the court in the Republicans favor. In fact, McCain could not do so even if he were so inclined, because we have lost our majority in congress, and a democratic congress simply is not going to allow another Alito or Roberts on to the High Court, and McCain has even stated that he would not nominate anyone that conservative to the high court.
The Supreme Court is no reason to vote for John McCain, because he cannot and will not nominate anyone to upset the apple cart. As much as I want the conservatives to be in power, I think that we need to take a strategic loss on the Presidential race this year and vote for someone like Bob Barr to send a signal to the Republican Party that we are serious about small government. It would be far better to allow Obama the win, while handing the Republicans a spectacular defeat as punishment for their big spending, big government ways that have dominated the Bush Administration. This way the conservatives that we retain in Congress will get the message that we expect them to act like Conservatives instead of mean spirited liberals. A big government Republican Party must be brought to heel, lest we have lost everything that Conservativism supposedly stands for. We cannot allow another Bush, which is exactly what McCain would be only dumber.
Sorry to mostly repeat a comment made to another posting of your’s, but I think it needs to be said:
While I agree that Obama must be defeated for other reasons, I think is it fatuous to suggest that McCain would appoint judges that would look favorably on both Heller and McCain-Fiengold. Just not going to happen.
McCain showed us just how pro-gun he was after he lost the 2000 presidential primary (not very, see http://gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm). Unlike G. W. Bush I may believe him when he says he wouldn’t sign a new AW ban—unlikely to be an issue given how the Dems in Congress prefer job security over this issue—but I expect nothing helpful from him or the Republicans in the next four years on the RKBA.
As Johnnyb points out, the Dems in the Senate are VERY unlikely to confirm anyone favorable to us, and why would McCain upset his buddies there (just look at all the “McCain-[some very liberal Dem] legislation he’s proposed).
I wouldn’t consider either Bush real conservatives either, but of the five majority justices, two were appointed by Reagan, one by Bush Sr, and two by Bush Jr.
As someone mentioned, Republicans have tended to bat .500 on the court appointments, but Democrats bat 1.00. Both Clinton’s appointees dissented. If Obama is elected, it is fairly certain Ginsburg and Stevens will retire. It’s not out of the realm of possibility that Scalia will as well. Kennedy is also about the same age. If Obama gets to replace those justices, Heller is finished. It will be meaningless.
There’s at least a chance with McCain, which is why I don’t think this is the time to fuck around with trying to fuck the Republicans.