The Next US Supreme Court Justice

It appears that the U.S. Supreme Court will add in a new face some time this year. David Souter, George H. Bush appointee, has decided to retire at the end of the current court term.[1] Although appointed by Bush Sr., Souter often sided with the liberal side of the court so the balance of the court will not change (though Obama's appointee will mostly likely lean the liberal side more often than Souter). Now the search is on for someone to replace him.

So who will Obama pick? Some people have been mentioned but let's review what Obama has said concerning the criteria that he'll use when deciding who he'll nominate.

While on the campaign trail, President Obama said the following concerning his potential nominee:

• 2008 in Ohio:

"I want people on the bench who have enough empathy, enough feeling, for what ordinary people are going through,"[2].

• 2008 in New York (debate):

"I will look for those judges who have an outstanding judicial record, who have the intellect, and who hopefully have a sense of what real-world folks are going through,"

• 2007

"And then there's another vision of the court that says that the courts are the refuge of the powerless," he said. "Because oftentimes they can lose in the democratic back and forth. They may be locked out and prevented from fully participating in the democratic process.... And we need somebody who's got the heart -- the empathy -- to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old -- and that's the criteria by which I'll be selecting my judges."

A judge that's empathetic and understands what it's like to be poor or black or gay or old?? I think Che Guevara would have been an excellent pick for the President. Wait, actually no he wouldn't have. Che wasn't fond of homosexuals.[3]

I wonder if President Obama wants his nominee to be empathetic toward the unborn child. Perhaps when he said "have a sense of what real-world folks are going through" that he meant gun owners. What about small business owners? Wealthy people? I mean, they are in the minority, especially these days. Or Is empathy only reserved for minorities, like myself but excluding rich folks, who are "oppressed" by the majority? Yes, that must be it then.

Arlen Specter, fresh off his recent converstion over to the Democratic Party, put in his valuable 2 cents by stating that he wanted Obama to look beyond judicial credentials and pick a statesman or stateswoman[4]. How on earth did Specter get elected so many times? Pennsylvanians are suspect, at best, when it comes to their politics (Rick Santorum and John Murtha to boot).

Anyway, here are some real people that Obama might pick (rumored):

• Sonia Sotomayor

• Elena Kagan

• Diane Wood

I sense a theme here. I'm sure I will be wonderfully disappointed with his selection.

Rejoice! Arlen Specter leaves the GOP.

Arlen Specter, beloved GOP senator from Pennsylvania, announced today that he be leaving the Republican Party and join the Democratic Party. I must say that it's about time.

Mr. Specter said in a statement that he released today that:

"Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right," Specter said in a statement released this morning. "Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."[1]

The GOP has moved far to the right?



Let's pretend for a moment that Mr. Specter's real reason for moving to the Democratic side is due to the GOP moving to the right since the Reagan Era. Which issues, that he disagrees with, could have possible moved to the right since that time.

He voted for the bailouts[1], Bush's prescription drug bill[2], The Patriot Act[3], and Obama's Omnibus Bill[[4]. Perhaps the Republicans just aren't big enough spenders for Mr. Specter.

The real reason for his decision to leave the GOP has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with being re-elected. Yes, Arlen left because he fear being unemployed. Specter, in 2004, narrowly defeated Pat Toomey in the Republican primary. Specter was expected to lose to Toomey this time around. In fact, a recent poll showed that Toomey was up by double digits on Specter[5]. However, some experts believe that the switch to a new party will most likely guarantee Specter the election in 2010. Clay Richards, assistant director for the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, said that he "just can't see anything but a landslide for Specter at this point". Michael Barone, co-author of the Almanac of American Politics, agrees,"I think [Specter's] prospects for reelection are very good,"[6] Oh yeah, Specter switched parties for ideological reasons.

This kind of switch, to extend one's employment, is one reason why I am in favor of term limits. Arlen has been in the senate long enough and I think it's time he does this country a favor and retire. I, for one, am glad that the Arlen Specter types are leaving the Republican Party. The less fiscally liberal types that are in the GOP the better, in my humble opinion.

Specter will most likely continue to blame the social "ultra conservative" or religious part of the party (because frankly he cannot possibly mean that he is a fiscal conservative) as the election grows closer. The President even said that he will raise money and campaign for the swine[7].

I think Specter might have found his soul mate; well only if it manages to get him elected.

5 things I hate about the Republican Party

My parents are Cuban and migrated to this country in the early 70's for political reasons. My father is a staunch anti-communist, and a die-hard member of the Republican. I have been a member of the Republican party since 1992 (I voted for Clinton that year), but I've been seriously contemplating leaving the party. The following 5 reasons are most to blame for my disgruntlement towards the GOP.

(The following list is in no particular order).

1. The George W. Bush Era:

The Republican Party has certainly changed since the Barry Goldwater/Reagan era, and President George Walker Bush will forever be the face of that change. His era of rule featured the following gems: TARP, Increased federal spending [1], Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme court, failure to privatize social security, and a host of other hits. And no, Iraq, Gitmo, and "torture" is not on my list. My disdain for the presidency of George W. Bush is mainly due to his utter contempt toward fiscal conservatism, and his adherence to collective policies toward the end of his administration .

2. Arlen Specter:

My contempt for the tool that is Arlen Specter could not possibly grow any bigger. The senator from Pennsylvania has a long history of upsetting conservatives within the GOP on such topics as: Abortion, The Clinton Impeachment, and some health care measures [2]. While I do disagree with his stance on abortion, my disdain for Mr. RINO himself are due to the following reasons:

• His 46 % rating (lifetime) by the AFL-CIO. His rating was 64 % in 2008 [3]

• Mr. Specter is a fan of bailouts. He voted 'Yes' on The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Obama's bailout), voted 'Yes' on The Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act of 2008, and voted 'Yes on The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Bush's bailout).

Need some the tax payers money? Specter is your guy, the louse.

3.Talk Radio Personalities:

Talk radio is a major influence within the conservative movement (shocking, I know). Although such "conservative" radio personalities as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Mark Levin are not directly affiliated with the GOP, they are as much a part of it as Moveon.org, Dailykos.com, and Air America are apart of the Democratic Party. It's a new age in politics.

Yes, my political interests are within the same spectrum as the above mentioned personalities, however my anger with them comes from their lack of venom, and fury they show the GOP (although less with Beck than the others). They do criticize the GOP from time to time but it is tame compared to how they speak of the Democratic Party. These personalities should take note of how Michael Savage does things. Mr. Savage has called congressional Republicans "gangsters", and even called President Bush "a fiscal socialist".

I may disagree with some of Michael Savage's stance on certain issues, but no one can call him a shrill for the Republican Party. Can the same be said for Hannity or Limbaugh?


4. "Cronyism, Nepotism, Rascalism":

Homer Stokes, a reform candidate running from governor of Mississippi in the movie "O Brother Where Art Thou", had a popular phrase that he would use to describe Pappy O'Daniel, the incumbent: "Four more years of cronyism! Nepotism! Rascalism! Of service to the interests". Yes, it does sound like Washington, doesn't it? The Republicans had their own issues with rascalism. Here's yet another list.


• Florida Congressman Mark Foley and his sexually explicit e-mails and instant messages with former pages[4].

• Jack Abramoff's, a former Republican lobbyist, scandal in where he was found "guilty of fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials.[5]

• Randy "Duke" Cunningham, former congressman from California, plead guilty to bribery charges in 2005.[6]

And a host of others....

5. Embracing Keynesianism :

If there is anything that draws my ire these days it's the Keynesian school of economics. One of the tenets of Keynesianism is the state creates policies in order to stabilize a "bad business cycle"[7]. An obvious example of this was the wasting of over 700 billion by Bush with the first bailout.

Friedrich August von Hayek, Nobel Prize winner in economics in 1974 and a very influential figure in the Austrian School of economics was a great critic of Keynesianism. He stated that:

Keynesian policies to combat unemployment would inevitably cause inflation, and that to keep unemployment low, the central bank would have to increase the money supply faster and faster, causing inflation to get higher and higher. Hayek’s thought, which he expressed as early as 1958, is now accepted by mainstream economists[8]

Hayek also believed the Keynesian policies would lead leads to totalitarian abuses, due to the need for centralized planning. John Keynes, the creator of Keynesianism, surprisingly echoed that concern:

The theory of aggregated production, which is the point of ['The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money'], nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state [eines totalen Staates] than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire."[9]

The fact that Republicans, specifically President Bush and his administration, would embrace such failed fiscally policies is the biggest crime, in my eyes, that they have committed against all people who believe in liberty, limited government, ,and free markets.

I wonder what Barry Goldwater would think about the current state of the GOP if he were alive today. Actually, I think that would put him back into his grave.