Supreme Court

Robert Barnes & Kevin Merida of the Washington Post have an article entitled “Activists Want ‘True Liberal’ For High Court.” To me, the article underscores that true liberals are barely recognizable in public life today. It suggests Hillary Clinton as a “true liberal.” That she is considered the “far left” or anywhere near it is mildly amusing to me. In Europe, I dare say she’d be fairly comfortable in the conservative parties. Part of the problem is defining what “liberal” might mean. To me, it would probably be someone who was at least pro-labor and anti-war. The bankruptcy-bill, NAFTA, Iraq War supporting Clinton doesn’t exactly qualify.

Liberal legal activists have consistently lagged behind conservatives in convincing their partisans that the court should be a voting issue. The court remains ideologically split, but any openings presented to the next president are almost sure to come from within the court’s liberal wing. The two oldest members of the court are Justices John Paul Stevens, 88, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75.

If Obama had the opportunity to make an appointment, it would be only the fourth nomination from a Democratic president in more than 40 years.
. . .
“It is a court with no true liberal on it, the most conservative court in 75 years,” said Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor.

In fact, of the current membership only Justices Breyer and Ginsberg were appointed by a Democrat (both by President Clinton.) The other seven were appointed by Republicans (two by Bush the Younger (Roberts & Alito), two by Bush the Elder (Thomas & Souter), two by Reagan (Scalia & Kennedy), and one by Ford (Stevens)).