Supreme Court Appointments

I think it is possible that, given that liberals on the Supreme Court are more likely to retire in the next 4-8 years than conservatives, a vote for Obama is a vote for the status quo, while a vote for McCain is a vote for a much more conservative court. Washington Post:

A victory by the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, would probably mean preserving the uneasy but roughly balanced status quo, since the justices who are considered most likely to retire are liberal. A win for his Republican counterpart, John McCain, could mean a fundamental shift to a consistently conservative majority ready to take on past court rulings on abortion rights, affirmative action and other issues important to the right.

This is because the conservatives (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito) are relatively young and show no intention of retiring. The liberals (Souter, Breyer, Ginsberg, Stevens) and swing vote (Kennedy) are more advanced in age.

I do see a few sets of circumstances that could alter this course. Of course, all of the Justices are over 50 years old, so anything can happen. Also, a reliable conservative may retire during the McCain presidency in the hopes of being replaced by a conservative, only to be replaced by a Stevens or a Souter. That possibility is made more likely by the third potential intervening circumstances - a Democratic Senate.

However, if Obama can convince voters that Roe v. Wade is in real jeopardy and make McCain's interest in overturning Roe v. Wade an issue in the campaign, Obama stands to benefit tremendously.

Judicial Activism

Matthew Yglesias on Exxon-Valdez:

Doubtless conservative pundits all across the land will howl with outrage at the gross judicial activism of the Supreme Court in slashing punitive damages in the Exxon Valdez case from $5 billion to $500 million, thus saving ExxonMobil, $4,500 million dollars.

And on Heller:

I also doubt that conservatives will be too upset by the "judicial activism" involved in the Supreme Court overturning the DC handgun ban. I don't really understand the details of the ruling at this point, but I'm not complaining about it either. From a policy perspective, what DC is trying to accomplish is just futile -- as long as the District is a very small patch of land adjacent to Virginia, there's no way gun regulations of this sort will prevent criminals from acquiring weapons.

Heh.

D.C. v. Heller (2nd Amendment)

Here is the opinion:

DC v Heller - Free Legal Forms

I have only skimmed the opinion (it's long).

I don't believe that the Second Amendment was originally meant to protect the right to bear arms for any purpose other than a "well-regulated militia." Scalia, surprisingly for someone who exalts the text so often, too casually dismisses the importance of the statement of purpose in the Second Amendment.

However, I am not an originalist. Therefore, I have no problem with interpreting the Constitution to grant rights not contemplated by the framers. When in doubt, I favor interpretations that expand rights rather than limit them.

Additionally, even if there were no right to bear arms, total bans on firearms would be a public policy disaster. It would have the same success as Prohibition and the War on Drugs. While law abiding citizens would disarm to some extent, criminals would continue to have guns.

So, while I disagree with parts of the opinion's legal analysis, I have no problem with the result. The same may be said for my thoughts on Roe v. Wade.

Death Penalty for Child Rape

I am opposed to the death penalty, but if we have it for murder, we ought to have it for child rape.

Why do Republicans, who don't trust the government to do anything well, suddenly have enough confidence in the same government to give them power over life and death?

McCain is Wrong Again

After taking a day to become unreasonable, McCain has decided to come out strongly against the Supreme Court's decision on habeas corpus in Boumediene.

Our first obligation is the safety and security of this nation, and the men and women who defend it.

No, our first obligation is to the American values they are defending.

Score One for the Rule of Law

NY Times

Foreign terrorism suspects held at the Guantánamo Bay naval base in Cuba have constitutional rights to challenge their detention there in United States courts, the Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 4, on Thursday in a historic decision on the balance between personal liberties and national security.

“The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court.

Roberts was with the minority, making this another decision vindicating his opponents.