To many people, the son of former President George "I-don't-know-that-atheists-should-be-considered-as-citizens" Bush is the front-runner in the next Presidential election. To a liberal Libertarian such as myself, this is a frightening concept, but it should be frightening to anyone who cares about liberty in this country.
Why? Well, not necessarily because of any legislation he may pass or fail to pass during his possible term in office. Rather, because of appointments he would make to the Supreme Court.
George W. has made it quite clear that he will only appoint conservatives to the highest court in the land. And during the next presidential term of office, probably two or three justices will be appointed, and maybe even a Chief Justice.
Let's take a look at our current line-up, by seniority. First, we have Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Appointed in '72 by Nixon, made Chief Justice by Reagan in '86. Conservative, but occasionally votes moderate. He's expected to retire in 2001 if our next prez is Republican, but may stay on, if not.
John Paul Stevens, appointed in '75 by Ford. He's arguably the most liberal justice, but he's also the oldest, so it would surprise no one if he retired first, during the next presidential term.
Sandra Day O'Connor, appointed in '81 by Reagan. Conservative, and the likeliest replacement for Rehnquist as Chief Justice, should the next prez be Republican.
Antonin Scalia, appointed in '86 by Reagan. So conservative that he threatens to quit because of the court's moderate leanings! But he loves the job, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
Anthony Kennedy, appointed in '87 by Reagan. Conservative, but with moderate leanings. His votes regarding abortion and gay rights have other conservatives upset, which is a point in his favor, in my opinion.
David Souter, appointed in '90 by Bush. Moderate, and likely to be appointed Chief Justice is George W. is elected.
Clarence Thomas, appointed in '91 by Bush. Not likely to retire any time soon, since he claims he'll stay on the job until 2034! Conservative, but lately becoming moderate.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appointed in '93 by Clinton. Once labeled liberal, is really more of a moderate. Possibly due to her friendships with O'Connor and Scalia?
Stephen Breyer, appointed in '94 by Clinton. Moderate, and enjoys sparring with Scalia.
So how does that stack up? If Stephens leaves, we'll get a conservative replacement, if GWB has his way. And he would. And what if one or two of the moderates also retire? One or two more conservatives will replace them.
This would spell disaster for this country. Of all possible places for politically balanced ideologies to be the rule, the Supreme Court has got to be the top of the list.
Imagine if you will what would happen if the Supreme Court was overwhelmingly conservative. What would happen to the separation of church and state? I'll give you a reference. Check out the situation right here in Utah.
There is no separation of church and state in Utah. It is a mind-numbingly conservative state. In fact, one of its senators, Orrin Hatch, is conceivably a possibility for president.
There are those, however (myself included), who think Hatch's bid for the position is only a stepping stone to another position. It is believed that at some point in the race, he will withdraw from the running, provided that George W. Bush grants him an appointment to…you guessed it…the Supreme Court. Would George do it? Quite likely he would. Consider that Hatch is conservative, and that he could provide Bush with the Mormon vote. What's George got to lose?
And remember, appointments to the Supreme Court are lifetime appointments. Justices are generally replaced only when they die or retire. Imagine the havoc that a decade or two of overwhelmingly conservative decisions could wreak on our poor nation.
Specifically, imagine this when it comes time to vote.
