David Savage, the Los Angeles Times writer who frequently writes about legal affairs, implies that conservatives do not support free speech. (Pay for his article here; read if free here)
Writing about the escalating battle over judicial nominations, Savage writes, correctly, that
party labels don’t necessarily mean much on the bench…. The fight over filibusters may have more to do with the kind of Republican who joins the courts, in particular the Supreme Court…. The dominance of GOP appointees on the Supreme Court has not led to predictably conservative rulings.
As a “case study,” Savage the significance of Robert Bork being rejected and Anthony Kennedy being appointed.
The importance of what brand of Republican joins the court was driven home in 1987, when President Reagan nominated conservative judge Robert Bork for the Supreme Court. Senate Democrats defeated Bork, and Reagan chose instead Judge Anthony Kennedy, a Republican with a reputation as a moderate conservative. He won a unanimous confirmation by the Senate.
The switch proved momentous. In 1989, Kennedy cast the fifth vote to rule that burning an American flag was protected as an act of free speech….
Savage conveniently neglected to mention that the Supreme Court justice who virtually owns the “brand” of legal conservatism, Justice Scalia, voted with the majority that flag-burning is a form of protected expressive speech.
Honestly, I don’t think having a Republican president in important in terms of the Supreme Court. As the article says:
“…The dominance of GOP appointees on the Supreme Court has not led to predictably conservative rulings…
it has upheld affirmative action in colleges and universities…
Not counting Clarence Thomas, who I think is a great judge, but who was chosen because he was the highest ranking black Republican judge at a time when the only black on the court (Marshall) retired – the last GOP Supreme Court judge was David Souter. The odds-on favorite for the first Bush appointee is Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, who basically wrote Bush’s amicus curaie brief in the Grutter case, supporting “diversity” as an excuse to discriminate against white kids in college admissions. He’s also far-left on abortion and illegal immigration, although conservative on crime.
So if “conservatives” want a conservative judge – especially on the issue of racial preferences, don’t look to the current GOP to help you. Seriously, are the Clinton appointees (Bryer and Ginsberg) any more liberal than Souter and Gonzalez, on the large majority of issues?
At least with someone like Hillary Clinton, you know what she stands for. Most Republicans (like Bush) never give you a straight answer (i.e., Bush is in favor of “diversity”, “affirmative access”, “compassionate conservatism”,using “race as a factor” etc, but he’s against “quotas” and in favor of “civil rights”. Or like Bush being in favor of “legalizing the status” of “undocumented workers” but he’s against “amnesty” for “illegal immigrants”. Give me Hillary Clinton, at least she’s honest, unlike GWBush (and his brother, and most 2008 major GOP presidential candidates.)