What do you think the GOP should do? They have a choice coming up soon. President Obama is expected to name his nominee for the Supreme Court Justice replacement for the retiring Justice Souter in the next 10 days or so. The President could nominate anyone from a centrist judge to someone who makes Justice Ginsberg look conservative. It likely won't be a centrist based on some of the President's comments on the Warren court.
The GOP has a choice to make. Do they stand on principle and oppose a bad nominee - one that they have no chance of stopping?
OR
Do they vote in favor of the nominee after voicing their concerns, thereby not being labelled once more (unfairly) the party of 'no'? By doing so, they would maintain a more conciliatory record on SCOTUS nominees than the Democrats' partisan denials that date back to Clarence Thomas.
The first choice is more principled, and the GOP is trying to recapture the image of the party of integrity. The second choice is smarter politically because it helps set up the GOP for stronger arguments in 2010 and 2012 in that they can argue another instance of not being obstructionist.
Does the latter choice alienate the base? Does the former choice alienate the politically inattentive?
Please add your comments.
They should do the first choice and stand on principle. We should always stick to the Constitution and our Christian values (and guns), and leave the outcome to God. Our GOP leaders are so far away from how conservatives are thinking--for instance, Rush Limbaugh is a good example of how conservatives think. The job of the Supreme Court is to decide whether a judgment was made correctly according to the law. I hate to say "interpreted" because their job isn't to interpret the law but to uphold it and that's the kind of judge we need.
ReplyDelete