As she stated some of the most liberal members of the court have been put there by Republicans. It really makes no real difference who gets elected because the justices tend to trend liberal over time. While she demonizes McCain, I am not sure I am comfortable Obama’s view that justices should value empathy over the letter of the law and facts.
It is the rule of law that matters, but Lithwick doesn’t get it, her precious liberal wing ruled in favor of the state taking away private property so it can be given to another private property owner. Around here we call that stealing. Stevens’ said “The court should not second-guess local governments.” Sounds to me that the liberal wing of the court sidelined themselves just fine from government over-reaching. There is no reason to think Obama’s choices would not sideline themselves for liberal causes.
I want justices that will read and apply the letter of the law. While the country may shift right and left and administrations come and judges are lifetime appointments. T he sideline argument Lithwick suggests just makes no sense. If Obama is elected these sideline justices will now be activists, and back and forth as administrations change. Congress is free to write and re-write the law as much as they see fit. The President can veto as he wishes. It is the Courts job to make sure it fits with the existing framework and in order to do that the law must be interpreted strictly. Justices should make little interpretation of the spirit of the law as that is Congresses job to do the peoples work. The justices should be seen as editors of the Constitution law, not authors.