Top Menu

Tokyo Rove

SCOTUS Critical Concern In 2016 Presidential Election

Those who love America are justifiably concerned about what Obama is doing to our country, and what he will do if his blatant disregard for the Constitution and the “separation of powers” is permitted to continue unchecked.

But forward-thinking conservatives are keenly aware that we must be concerned about the future as well, and not just because of Obama. Based on age alone, one of the primary areas of concern is that the person elected president in 2016 will potentially have at least four Supreme Court Justices to replace. Two of the potential four are liberals, so a Democrat president would simply be replacing liberals with liberals, ergo, it would be a wash. But of the other two the one is a solid Constructionist, and the other is a swing vote who has, in recent years, ruled based on Constructionism enough times that we should be concerned if a Democrat president replaces him.

Four of the SCOTUS Justices are over 75 years of age. Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer will turn 76 this August. Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg (at the penning of this commentary) literally days away from her 81st birthday. Anthony Kennedy, who is always a critical swing vote, will turn 78 this July. Antonin Scalia is (at the penning of this commentary) also just days away from turning 78 years of age.

And while I would certainly agree with the argument that the 60s are the new 40s (well, late 40s anyway), the fact that strict Constructionists Justice Samuel Alito, Jr. turns 64 in April and Justice Clarence Thomas turns 66 in June should not be dismissed as there not being a need for at least tangential concern.

We like to think that there’s no need to worry about good guys dying early, but the ugly truth about death is it can happen in the blink of an eye. But, I digress.

[adsanity id=8405 align=alignleft /]As you can see, the potential for the political complexion of the High Court to be changed for decades to come should be of critical concern if a Democrat wins the presidency in 2016. But, it is myopic betise on an epic level to even for an instant believe we need not be concerned if a Republican wins. Especially if it is an establishment Republican.

Even when, we were actually able to trust Republican Presidents to be conservatives, their best judicial judgment, more often than we care to think came up lacking. Republican President Eisenhower lamented, “I made two mistakes, and both of them are sitting on the Supreme Court.” He was referring to Earl Warren and William Brennan, Jr.

Dr. Thomas Sowell wrote in 2007, “It is understandable that liberal [Democrat] presidents, beginning with Franklin D. Roosevelt, loaded the Supreme Court with liberal, [Democrat] Justices. … What is far harder to understand is how a whole succession of conservative Republican presidents — Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush 41 — managed to appoint so many liberals to the Supreme Court.” (High Court and Low Politics: Part II; Creators Syndicate)

And while I argue it is a giant leap on any quantifiable level to consider Gerald Ford a Conservative, President Reagan’s conservative bonafides are unimpeachable, and yet he nominated Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (the quota queen who was so far to the left that she could straddle the Pacific with one foot standing on California) to the High Court. Even after he was warned she was a grave mistake as a nominee.

President Nixon’s fourth-rate stupidity pursuant to the Watergate break-in does nothing to diminish his conservative bonafides, even if his race-based affirmative action legislation should. But as Dr. Sowell also points out: “President Nixon appointed Harry Blackmun, who created a ‘constitutional right’ to an abortion out of thin air, just as previous liberal justices had created all sorts of constitutional rights out of thin air for criminals, vagrants, and others.”

With Karl Rove and Reince Priebus pulling the strings of the GOP and RNC, the Republican Party resembles a RINO theme park more than it does the Party true conservatives have supported.

With them controlling things from behind the curtain it is not just critical that the next president be “conservative” but he/she must be a legitimate conservative whose conservative bonafides are unimpeachable. It does conservatism no good to elect a Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Jeb Bush type. The 2016 election will place in office a person with the potential to change the face of SCOTUS for many decades to come. And as John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell, et al. have showed us — it’s not just Democrats who are betraying us.[adsanity id=11210 align=alignleft /]

, , , , ,

24 Responses to SCOTUS Critical Concern In 2016 Presidential Election

  1. meted February 27, 2014 at 2:38 pm #

    With the republican party so divided I doubt they have the capability of putting anyone in the oval office. Even if they did I agree that just because they are republican does not mean they are good for this country. I still have hope that americans will finally pull their collective heads out and realize we need leaders with honor, humility and respect. The GOP needs to be reborn as a truly conservative party or disappear altogether to make room for a third party. Our country would not support another “conservative” party all that would do is ensure the liberals and progressives stayed in office.
    We need more men and women such as yourself who are not afraid and who will make a stand for our rights and uphold the constitution. I appreciate your columns and comments.

    • Mychal Massie
      Mychal Massie March 1, 2014 at 1:44 pm #

      meted: I don’t understand your comment…

  2. Ann Foyer February 22, 2014 at 4:31 pm #

    There has been a nagging thought in my mind–and heart–for some time. Have you ever thought that Pres. O would defy yet another law and NOT vacate the presidency or manipulate a surrogate to replace himself? After all, why go to the extent he has to subvert the Const. to simply pass the "fundamental change" on to anyone else to enjoy? Does he not want to reap the spoils? Circumstances could be created to instigate such a move. Think about that one!!!

    • Mychal Massie
      Mychal Massie February 25, 2014 at 10:16 pm #

      ann foyer: that is not going to happen…

  3. Chris February 20, 2014 at 6:09 pm #

    Our biggest problem is the GOP a party that believes they will get by on Obama Care. They are a gutless group that cares for nothing but their cash and benefits. I propose that the GOP will come out the loser in 2014 and possibly again in 2016. I want to know what the Dems are up to. We are in a bad state and we should not look to the GOP to save us. We will have to do it ourselves. Can you just see the likes of the Founders and what they would be doing to the bad guys

    • Mychal Massie
      Mychal Massie February 21, 2014 at 4:32 pm #

      chris: I agre with you…they will come up the loser if they continue to thumb their noses at we the people…

  4. David Sutton February 18, 2014 at 7:14 pm #

    Amen, and amen, and amen. I will say it again. If the Republican Party tries to run another RINO as "The Only One Who Can Win," I will not vote. We have been pulled down that road far too many times.

    • Mychal Massie
      Mychal Massie February 19, 2014 at 4:29 pm #

      david sutton: you are spot on…we cannot make change as long as we vote for establishment candidates out of fear…

  5. Joe February 18, 2014 at 2:09 pm #

    When you leave God out of the equation of life, you are left with outcome based lawmakers, who don’t care about right and wrong, but what feels good at the moment, no matter ithat in the forseeable long run if will be the ruin of many. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tommorow we die.

    • Mychal Massie
      Mychal Massie February 19, 2014 at 4:29 pm #

      joe: amen…well said…

  6. Deborah February 18, 2014 at 11:49 am #

    The Supreme Court is a substantial concern at all times. But what about the over 200 federal judge appointments made by this potus over his term…so far. The deck is being stacked nationwide. Conservatives will continually find it harder and more onerous to win cases. As much as I would like to say justice is blind, we all know this not to be the case. And I do believe there should be term/presiding limits on all politicians/officials.

    • Mychal Massie
      Mychal Massie February 19, 2014 at 4:33 pm #

      deborah: point well made…but the scotus is the final arbiter…

  7. George Blumel February 18, 2014 at 4:42 pm #

    Another excellent contribution to political awareness –the next president will indeed have a very long term effect on the country with his Supreme Court appointments. As you clearly show having an R instead of D is no assurance that we'll get judges who follow the "original intent" or that they will follow the clear language of the basic law of the land. Only a reliably true conservative/libertarian with a record of adhering to our Constitution –like Ted Cruz f'rinstance– can we have confidence in the nominees.
    Also, obviously, term limits –say, 20 years or age 72– should be considered.

    • Mychal Massie
      Mychal Massie February 19, 2014 at 4:35 pm #

      george blumel: I’m not in favor of term limits…that is even more dangerous if the wrong person is elected…

  8. George Blumel February 18, 2014 at 11:30 am #

    I’ve worked in campaigns to limit the terms of politicians for over 30 years and in that time we passed limits on state legislatures and on congress in many states. However, Rep Tom Foley, Speaker of the House and in congress for 30 years brought suit, challenging the constitutionality of a state law setting eligibility requirements on federal offices. Foley won his suit, with the Supreme Court saying that states did not have the authority under the U.S. Constitution to limit the terms of congress. It was a political 5-4 decision with Clarence Thomas writing the convincing dissenting opinion.
    We’re still trying -go to and sign the petition to help get it going. A Resolution for an amendment to limit congress has been filed by Sen DeMint and now sponsored by Sen Vitter with about a dozen co-sponsors; also in he House by Rep Schweikert.

    • Mychal Massie
      Mychal Massie February 19, 2014 at 4:36 pm #

      george blumel: term limits on congress I am for…in the absence of codifying term limits we must use our votes as de facto term limits…

  9. Benton H Marder February 18, 2014 at 10:44 am #

    Strictly speaking, the Constitution does NOT grant life tenure to federal judges. It does state that they hold their offices during good behaviour. In theory, Congress could set term limits or define ‘good behaviour’. There are a lot of provisions in the Constitution that have not been defined or limited’ yet these matters are within the scope of Congress. We have just let matters slide or just not realised exactly what the Constitution actually says. we assume the status quo.

    • Mychal Massie
      Mychal Massie February 19, 2014 at 4:38 pm #

      benton h. marder: point well made…

  10. Sunny Vee February 18, 2014 at 8:59 am #

    We definitely need term limits for the Supreme Court. There is no rationale on earth that can explain why we have these old toads on the court now, at their age. And it’s not that they cannot be productive and smart, it’s that they’ve long overstayed their assignment, and their bias seems to only intensify with time.

    I am a bit surprised you did not mention G.W. Bush and his stellar appointee to the Court—-John Roberts. Talk about the gift that keeps on giving to the Left! There is not a single Republican president who has done us any favors on the Court.

    • Mychal Massie
      Mychal Massie February 19, 2014 at 4:39 pm #

      sunny vee: I disagree…term limits on congress…term limits on scotus opens up whole bunch of other worms…

  11. Nancy Murdoch February 18, 2014 at 12:58 pm #

    Excellent article. And to think, many in this country think the Supreme Court is the supreme law of the land.

    • Mychal Massie
      Mychal Massie February 19, 2014 at 4:39 pm #

      nancy murdoch: thank you…

  12. desertspeaks February 18, 2014 at 4:26 am #

    John McCain in office ILLEGALLY!

    I’ve written and phoned the governor’s and attorney general’s offices of Arizona. All the major media outlets across the country, I’ve phoned the attorney gen of Az and they actually hung up on me, after they could NOT answer as to why Senator John McCain was in office and remains so, even though according to the Constitution of Arizona, Article VII, Section 18 CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY states the following

    Section 18. The name of any candidate for United States senator from Arizona shall not appear on the ballot if, by the end of the current term of office, the candidate will have served (or, but for resignation, would have served) in that office for TWO consecutive terms..
    Senator John McCain was elected to the office of Senator of Arizona in the following years.

    1992 This election does NOT count towards the TERM LIMIT of Az Const. article vii section 18

    1998 This election counts towards the TERM LIMIT imposed by section 18

    2004 This election COUNTS as his SECOND AND FINAL CONSECUTIVE TERM per section 18


    EVERYONE is afraid to even discuss it! No one will venture a REPLY to my inquiries!
    So I saw your article on Before it’s news and thought you might have some sway.. IF you have the guts to report the story!
    No one else does! And as I stated before, I’ve sent this to every major media outlet in the United States and a few overseas outlets hoping that SOMEONE would report this!!
    None dare speak!
    Fyi, after contacting the Az attorney generals office here in Arizona, the keystone cops started frequenting my street, both on foot and patrol cars. This is something our local constabulary has NEVER done in the past! It’s a little chilling to say the least!

    • Mychal Massie
      Mychal Massie February 19, 2014 at 4:42 pm #

      desertspeaks: excellent points…

Leave a Reply

COMMENTS POLICY: Please note some comments may be held for manual approval before appearing on this website. PERMISSIONS: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in its entirety or in unaltered excerpts, as long as you do not charge a fee. Does NOT APPLY to E-Books. For Internet posting, please use only unaltered excerpts (or the content in its entirety) and you must provide a hyperlink to this page. Any exceptions to the above must be approved by The Daily Rant. Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: ©2015 The Daily Rant. Website: