Originally Posted by
tommy
Not that the debates historically have had much of an impact on the outcome of the Presidential election -- at least not in terms of helping a trailing candidate come back to win -- but still they are a high point of the campaign for many. So what do you guys think we're going to see in the first debate on Wednesday night, which is on domestic policy, and keeping in mind the rules of this thread, what would you like to see?
One issue which I'm hoping to see discussed is the Supreme Court. I haven't heard a single mention of it this entire campaign, but for me, it is a critical issue in every presidential election. We currently have four justices in their 70's, including Justice Ginsburg, who is 79 years old.
It is a set piece in every presidential debate that when the issue of Supreme Court appointments comes up, the Republican candidate says something to the effect of "I would appoint justices who understand their limited role, who are not judicial activists, who would strictly adhere to the Constitution, and who would not 'legislate from the bench.'" And the Democratic candidate says something like, "I would appoint justices who have the intellectual ability and the professional experience to handle the job, and who understand that interpretation of the Constitution has to remain relevant to our nation as it is today, not to the nation as it was in the 1700's, and ones who understand the struggles faced by so many of our citizens today." That kind of thing.
But I'd like to see the moderator ask something like this:
I'm going to ask you about the Supreme Court. I'm not going to let you get away by just saying you don't want a justice who legislates from the bench, or you want one who understands the everyday problems of people today. Instead, consider this: traditionally, it has been Republicans and their supporters who have been outspoken in protesting the decisions of judges and justices that they thought were "activist" or were "legislating from the bench." But in the minds of many legal observers, the tables have turned, and it is now the majority of the Roberts Court, primarily appointed by Republicans, which has been criticized as itself being judicial activists and of legislating from the bench. Critics point to the overturning of legislation on gun control for instance, in Chicago and Washington, D.C. They point to the invalidation of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law in the Citizens United case, which cleared the way for the incredible, unprecedented amounts of money poured into this campaign. And the invalidation of other legislation that had seemed to many to be within the purview of Congress to pass.
But then health care happened. It was widely expected that this conservative Court would invalidate that law as well, but it didn't. And the deciding vote to uphold the individual mandate which was the centerpiece of the legislation, was cast not by a liberal on the court, but by Chief Justice Roberts himself, siding with the liberals, although for different reasons.
So the question is: You're both lawyers. What do you think about what's going on at the Supreme Court? What do you think of the Roberts Court? If, in the context of responding to this question, you want to discuss the types of appointees you would consider, you may do so, but I'm not going to let you just offer up the same old platitudes on this issue that we hear every four years from the candidates. I'll cut you off if you try to do that. Go.