Why should a conservative re-elect Snyder?

Why should a conservative re-elect Snyder?

            Before I became County Chair, I was an outspoken critic of Gov. Snyder over some issues. I supported Attorney General Mike Cox in the 2010 gubernatorial primary. My views have not changed since then. There are many issues where I disagree with Governor Snyder. However, he'd be much better than Mark Schauer. On every issue I disagree with Snyder, Schauer not only agrees with Snyder, but goes much further than he does.

            Rick Snyder signed Right to Work. It got to his desk and he signed it. Mark Schauer would repeal it. Rick Snyder signed a partial birth abortion ban. Mark Schauer voted against a partial birth abortion ban. Rick Snyder was leading the way to enact balanced budgets in Michigan. Mark Schauer added to the debt, both in Michigan, and in his two years in congress.

            We also need to help our good conservative state legislators in Lansing. Who is more likely to sign Senator Joe Hune's bills if they pass? Who would be more likely to sign a bill sponsored by Lana Theis or Dr. Hank Vaupel? I think we all know the answer to that. 

            One issue that isn't discussed is judges. As an attorney, I understand that this is an issue that can impact us for 30 or more years. In Michigan, judges are elected for their terms, but governors appoint judges to fill vacancies if judges resign or die during their term. Justices Robert Young and Stephen Markman, two of the best in the state, were originally appointed by Governor John Engler. You can bet that Governor Jennifer Granholm would not have appointed them, nor will Mark Schauer. Rick Snyder appointed Brian Zahra and David Viviano, both good justice who have judicial experience.

            With too much to lose with these issues, I highly encourage a vote for Governor Rick Snyder, along with Justices Brian Zahra and David Viviano, and Judge James Robert Redford (Redford's opponent Richard Bernstein has NO judicial experience). For district judge, Dennis Brewer has my vote. He would replace a Granholm appointee who has issues with temperament. Brewer is an even tempered attorney who would be an excellent judge in this county.

            This gubernatorial election is important. I do not agree with Governor Snyder on all issues, but I agree with Mark Schauer on zero issues. We can not let Mark Schauer win. Snyder agrees with us at least on some issues. We need him to win another four year term, and make sure the most conservative electable candidate wins in 2018.

Argus pushes for judicial reform - I have mixed views

One thing that's been pushed for years from the Center For Michigan and the Phil Power crew is a change in how Supreme Court justices are chosen in Michigan. The Argus had an editorial on that today, copied in part from the Lansing State Journal. I partially agree with it, although other parts I do not agree with. Personally I think the system for the Supreme Court should be the same system used for other Michigan judges. A simple primary where the top two candidates have a run off in November. Maybe add a 10 year law practice requirement to prevent newcomers with certain Irish last names from making a run for it five years out of law school.

The task force recommends:

Public disclosure of all judicial campaign spending.

Creation of an open primary to remove political parties from nominating candidates for Supreme Court justice.

Creation of two citizen panels, one to screen and recommend candidates for appointment to Supreme Court vacancies and the other to monitor conduct of judicial campaigns and provide context to help citizens evaluate claims made in election advertisements.

Creation of a voter education guide, produced by the secretary of state, to provide voters with basic background information on judicial candidates' training and experience.

Ending the age-70 limit on judicial candidates. The change would require a constitutional amendment.The reforms will not be easily adopted. Interest groups — including the Democratic and Republican political parties — may well prefer the status quo. But candidates in a nonpartisan race for a job where impartiality is a core requirement should not be forced to curry favor among party activists in order to get on the ballot. It's a system that breeds distrust and must be changed.
An impartial judiciary is in Michigan's best interests. By removing partisanship, holding interest groups accountable for their spending and their advertising messages, involving citizens more closely and supporting voter education, Michigan can improve this system greatly.

Addressing those points.

1. We have public disclosure of judicial committee spending, as well as PACs.

2. I agree with the open primary similar to our appeals court elections.

3. Now I have a problem. Who gets on the panel? Who makes them the arbiter to decide? This looks too much like the Missouri plan which is not only political "behind the scenes" but take the picks away from the voters. As far as the conduct of judicial campaigns, we have the code of judicial ethics already in effect by the State Bar of Michigan. I'm bound by it myself when I'm part of a judicial campaign. I also do not want to see the State Bar of Michigan become a political organization, directly or indirectly.

4. Why was age 70 (or age 75 in some cases when election is at age 65) there to begin with? It hurts in some cases when the minds are still sharp, but others no longer have it.

5. This doesn't remove partisanship or do much of impartiality. It is, was, and always will be a factor as long as judicial philosophy is always an issue. Dred Scot. Slaughter-house. Lochner era. Roosevelt pushback and Wickard v Filburn. Warren Court (not AS bad as reputation). The Burger Court (absolutely awful). Rehnquist and Roberts balanced court today. It's become a bigger factor today largely thanks to the Burger Court's Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton and the heavy activism and increased governmental power of the 70's, some of it built upon previously bad decisions of Wickard v Filburn.

I've seen other issues pushed elsewhere like removing voting for judges and having governors appoint with no recourse by the the voters. I have a big problem with that. I don't think party conventions should nominate Supreme Court justices however. We do not do it for appeals court races which are just as important, and have almost the same impact as the Supreme Court.

Some of this isn't bad. Some is. I do think there will be a greater push for reforms, but let's make sure the cure isn't worse than the disease. 

Incumbent Judicial Filing Deadline Today, 3-26

Updated 3:21 - Garagiola NOT running for re-election.

Right now in Livingston County, the Argus saw something I've been keeping an eye on for awhile. Mike Hatty and Carol Sue Reader have announced that they are running for re-election, but so far, Carol Hackett Garagiola has not decided one way or another if she's running. No challengers have filed, although Lori Marran has an active campaign finance committee. Challengers don't have to file until May 1.

From the Argus

The Livingston County Probate Court judge race should come into focus today — the deadline for incumbent Judge Carol Hackett Garagiola to say yes to a re-election bid.

Garagiola has not responded to repeated telephone and e-mail messages from the Daily Press & Argus seeking comment.

While Garagiola has been quiet, candidate Lori Marran, a Friend of the Court referee and former Probate Court administrator, kicked her campaign into gear with a $1,000-per-plate dinner Thursday at Coyote Preserve Golf Club in Tyrone Township. The event, which drew support from retired and sitting judges, raised about $50,000.

Much of my practice deals with estate planning which is probate's jurisdiction, so I won't be saying much here about the probate race. I have to work with Garagiola and her office. I don't practice family law, but I've never had any problems in my area. I'll have to work with Marran if she runs and wins. I haven't worked directly with her, but heard good things from those who have. There may be other candidates as well. I don't know if others are running. I think if someone does run, it will be announced after today if Garagiola decides to not run for re-election.

Some important dates to remember are as follows.

3-26-2012 - 5PM - Incumbent Judicial Candidates (non-Scotus) filing deadline by affidavit. That's today.

5-1-2012 - 4PM - Challenger for judicial positions file by petition.

5-15-2012 - 4PM - Filing deadlines for precinct delegate and partisan/nonpartisan candidates in August primary. Filing deadline for local petition questions on August ballot unless earlier local deadline.

5-30-2012 - 4PM - Filing deadline for ballot initiative petitions for November ballot.

7-5-2012 - 5PM - Incumbent Supreme Court justices filing deadline by affidavit.

7-19-2012 - 4PM - District library board, Independent candidates filing deadline, also deadline for petitions for constitutional amendment.

7-27-2012 - 4pm - Write in candidate deadline (outside of precinct delegate) for primary

8-3-2012 - 4PM - Write in deadline for precinct delegate

8-14-2012 - 4PM - Filing deadline for school board, village candidates. Filing deadline for local petition questions unless earlier local deadline.

10-26-2012 - 4PM - Filing deadline for write in candidates in general.

Some election dominoes are going to start moving today.

Smoking and Judges

Two things here.

First, Mike Hatty is the newest circut judge here in Livingston County. I don't really know him that well and only met him a couple of times. From what I do know, he's a nice guy and a much better pick by Granholm than the last pick. Best of luck to Hatty. There will probably be much less dissention on this pick than the last one.

The ban on private businesses to control their smoking decisions passed the state house with exceptions for Detroit Casinoes, a special interest in their own right. This big government and anti-freedom measure passed 73-31. The good news is that Cindy Denby and Bill Rogers sided with freedom in their votes. We'll see what the Senate does. I hope they kill this thing and concentrate on the important stuff like the budget.

Lastly, The Right is trying to rile up the grassroots against Sotomoyer. I'm not ready to fire off both barrels on this just yet. Call it pragmatism on my part. I'm waiting and seeing more before I comment. There's an old saying that is running through my head. Take what you can get. There's 59 democrat votes in the senate so whoever picked will likely get in. I remember the fights over the AG position with Clinton. His first pick was Zoe Baird. His 2nd pick was Kimba Wood. Now those two may have ended up as awful picks, but could have have been worse than the Butcher of Waco, Janet Reno? Don't forget than thanks to Reno, we were stuck with Jamie Gorelick and Eric Holder who both have done as much damage to this country as Reno did. Hindsight is 20/20, but I'd rather have taken my chances with Baird or especially Wood than Reno.

I'd rather take my chances with a Sotomayer than a nutter like William O Douglas. My gut feeling is that she's another David Souter or John Paul Stevens, not a Douglas, or a William Brennan (who I respect, although disagree on most things outside of Criminal Procedure). My concern is that she's another functionalist lightweight like Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, Betty Weaver (I'd vote for Cavanaugh over Weaver even though he's more liberal.), or Warren Burger. Burger especially, who I consider the worst SCOTUS judge in the past 30 years. I'm not confusing Burger with Earl Warren either.

My advice to the right on Sotomayer. Don't fire off just yet, unless you are sure of the consequences. With 59 Democrat votes, this needs to go to an up or down vote. Save the fillibuster for someone like Cass Sunstein or a clone of William O Douglas. I'm not saying that Republican senators should vote for her, but they should wait and see until after the hearings, and they need to bring this to an up/down vote. The last thing I want to see is to trade off a Souter liberal for a Cass Sunstein or Erwin Chemerinsky radical, just as we were stuck with Janet Reno, Jamie Gorelick, and Eric Holder.

Gay marriage in Iowa and Vermont

I'm not as much of a hardliner on the gay marriage issue as I am other issues. Generally my stance (idealist to an extent) is this.


1. This is an issue that belongs at the state level, not the federal level. Let Vermont be Vermont, Michigan be Michigan, California be California, Texas be Texas, etc.

2. I'd personally like to see government get out of marriage altogether. Marriage is a religious based institution. From that standpoint, I do not support gay marriage. I don't have to worry about that. The Catholic Church does not support it. Some religions support it. Unitarians and Episcopalians. That's their business, not mine. I do opposed forced recognition of any gay marriage.

3. I do not support tax money paying for gay marriage or unions in broad based governmental benefits. I don't have a problem with governments hiring individuals however who happen to be gay, and if they do good enough where they can write their own ticket and demand individual domestic benefits. The former is collectivism, while the latter is individualism and a good business decision.

4. I support DOMA (Defense of marriage act).

5. I oppose US Constitutional Amendments of any sort regarding gay marriage. The United States Constitution is intended to limit the powers of government, not the people.


Now that disclaimer of sorts is out of the way, two states just legalized gay marriage. Iowa and Vermont. With my 10th Amendment leanings, I don't have a problem or issue with what Iowa and Vermont do on this issue (by result). I don't live there. I do have a bit of intrigue at the way this was done. One state did it the right way, and the other did it the wrong way.

Vermont did it the right way. It was a legislative action and by a vote of their state legislature. They are an elected body accountable to the people. That's the way this issue should be decided. I don't have a problem with it at all. I don't live there. As far as Iowa goes, this decision doesn't belong in the hands of the courts. It belongs in the legislatures or ballot proposals. That was the wrong way to do it.

My one concern though is the conflict between the 10th Amendment and Full Faith and Credit regarding the Defense of Marriage Act. That will be going to SCOTUS at some point in an attempt to force states to recognize another state's gay marriage. A legal argument (not saying I agree with results from a policy standpoint) can be made either way on that. Full Faith and Credit does not apply to everything however. Concealed weapons permits. Some states recognizes another state's Concealed Pistol license. Some don't. Will that happen here? I think we'll find out in the next five years.

Overall, let the legislatures in the states decide.

Judge Latrielle Retires

I heard this rumor for awhile. Judge Latrielle is a good judge and I was hoping he'd stay on until his term is done, but I am not surprised by this.

The Argus Reports.

Stanley J. Latreille, Livingston County's longest-serving Circuit Court judge in recent history, plans to leave the bench in early April after a 26-year run.


Latreille announced his resignation Wednesday, and has set April 3 as a tentative date for his last day on the bench.

He said he will consider serving as a visiting judge and providing mediation, but doesn't plan to practice law.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm will make an appointment to fill Latreille's seat after a candidate review period. The appointed judge will serve until the statewide election in 2010, and will have to run at that time to fill the rest of Latreille's term through Jan. 1, 2013, Granholm spokeswoman Megan Brown explained.

The process is expected to take several months.

Brighton-based attorney Michael Hatty said he will apply for the post.

Granholm gets to appoint a Circuit Judge. Among Democrats, we could do a lot worse than Mike Hatty. I would not be unhappy if that is her pick. We'll see who she picks.

Obama Judges - a preview? (Chemerinsky?)

Arguably the number one star lawyer for the left just released a book. Erwin Chemerinsky just released a book called Enhancing Government

It was reviewed in the WSJ.

The relation between the federal government and the governments of the various states is a chestnut of constitutional theory, a perennial cause of angst and a gauge of American politics generally. In antebellum America, Southern states claimed the right to ignore federal law, presaging the Civil War. In the past century, Progressive arguments for the federal -- rather than the state -- regulation of labor set in motion the centralized administrative juggernaut that became Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. More recently, the Rehnquist's Court's restrictions on federal authority, in favor of state autonomy, captured the Reagan Revolution's enthusiasm for decentralizing governmental power.

In "Enhancing Government," Erwin Chemerinsky provides a kind of holograph of what federalism -- as the federal-state relation is confusingly called -- would resemble if the U.S. were to enter a period of liberal ascendancy. His timing could not be better, since the chance of such an ascendancy is not exactly remote: A Barack Obama presidency seems possible, together with a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. Mr. Chemerinsky sketches a vision of federalism that would empower government at all levels and delight civil plaintiffs and criminal defense lawyers of every description. The great virtue of Mr. Chemerinsky's book is that it serves as a blueprint for the Obama administration and a fair warning to its opponents.

Mr. Chemerinsky argues that no constitutional principle prevents the federal government from regulating any matter. Accordingly, he sharply criticizes the decision in United States v. Lopez, where the Rehnquist Court held that the federal government lacked the authority to prohibit carrying guns near a school. Second, he solves one of the great federalism controversies -- whether state or federal courts are more competent to adjudicate federal legal claims -- by allowing civil plaintiffs and criminal defendants to choose whichever court that they prefer: presumably the one that, in their view, will most likely vindicate their rights. Finally, he argues that state law should yield only to an express federal directive contradicting it. Thus, in his view, the Supreme Court was wrong to hold that the Food and Drug Administration's approval of a medical device precluded state tort suits impugning the device's safety.

Mr. Chemerinsky's brand of federalism expresses an enthusiasm for regulation and a distrust of the market. Fair enough, if that is one's (Democratic) sense of things, although businesses should beware. But are his ideas defensible on other grounds? Take his claim that the court's decision in Lopez had no basis in the constitutional text. You can arrive at such a conclusion only if you throw out the hallowed principle that the federal government possesses only enumerated powers. Congress passed its ban on carrying guns near schools under its authority to "regulate commerce among the several states," but carrying a gun is not a commercial act and affects only the state where the school is located. Thus the court's decision on behalf of local law.

.....

So how probable is it that Mr. Chemerinsky's ideas will make their way into American law? It is hard to say. He is a prominent legal scholar -- now the dean of the new law school at the University of California at Irvine. If elected, Mr. Obama, himself a former teacher of constitutional law, may well choose federal judges -- or Supreme Court justices -- who know of Mr. Chemerinsky's work and the work of like-minded scholars. The legal theorizing of today is the judicial opinion of tomorrow. Still, we can hope that prudence will trump politics. To obliterate constitutional federalism -- because "yes, we can" -- would return us to the orthodoxies of an era of centralized power, something Mr. Obama professes to have left behind. We'll see.

Clinton wanted to nominate him in the 1990's, and was told by the GOP that he was DOA in committee. With the dems in charge of the senate, that might not be the case if Obama wins.

Judges and the ultra-aggressiveness of the democrats

Two issues here. The first is judges. If the GOP wants to make up some ground, this is the issue to go with. If you want to unite the base, fight on judges. From the Wall Street Journal:

Republican Arlen Specter has the right idea in requesting a discharge petition to confirm Peter Keisler on the D.C. Circuit, plus Robert Conrad and Steve Matthews on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Keisler, appointed to fill the seat vacated by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, is one of the most qualified nominees to the bench. He's done stints as acting Attorney General and head of the Justice Department's Civil Division. Messrs. Matthews and Conrad are both well qualified and would be assets on the Fourth Circuit, which hears many of the country's most important terrorism cases.
The problem is that Democrats would rather fill pending vacancies with candidates who are either their patronage choices or pass muster with liberal interest groups. That's already happened on the Fourth Circuit, where last month President Bush nominated Virginia Supreme Court Justice Steven Agee to appease Virginia Senator Jim Webb, the Democrat driving this "compromise," and Republican John Warner. The loser was well-respected Duncan Getchell, who was forced to withdraw.

(snip)

All of this deserves more political elevation this year, not least because it will affect the next President. John McCain is supporting Mr. Specter's plan, and urging the confirmation of Messrs. Keisler, Conrad and Matthews for the Memorial Day deal. Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama aren't. The two Democrats are only inviting trouble for themselves if they should make it to the White House. Republicans are sure to invoke the Harry Reid precedent to derail their nominees.
GOP Senators need to use their minority rights now to insist that Democrats honor their pledge by confirming three bona fide Bush nominees. Democrats are hoping to run out the clock on the Bush Presidency, and the GOP should use the leverage it has while Mr. Reid still wants to get things done. Republicans need to make judges an issue so voters understand that the stakes on the federal appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, couldn't be higher in 2008.

One guy I have begrudgingly respect for is Chris Van Hollen at the DCCC. While we have inept jokers running the NRCC and NRSC, they put their sonovabitch types there. That is what we need to do. From "The Hill"

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/van-hollen-using-fear-as-a-weapon-2008-04-23.html

Time and again this cycle, negative information about GOP candidates has been pushed early on in the race or even before they enter the race, with the purpose of keeping them from even making the effort to run.

In an interview with The Hill on Monday, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) chairman credited the expansive effort with sending some of the 29 incumbent Republicans into retirement and, more recently, discouraging non-incumbents.
“There are two pieces to that: One is putting pressure on incumbent Republican members to make the decision to retire, and the other is to put pressure on candidates that they’re trying to recruit and convince them that it’s not a good idea to run against one of our incumbents,” Van Hollen said.

(snip)

On Monday, former Arizona Senate President Ken Bennett turned down GOP entreaties to run for Congress. It was the second time he said no to the race, and he joined a long list of public figures who have come to the same conclusion.

Democrats had been circulating a 2006 assault plea by Bennett’s son that involved sodomizing boys with broomsticks. Bennett denied the effort had anything to do with his decision, but he’s hardly been the only one on the receiving end of Democrats’ hardball politics.

A local blog, PolitickerAZ.com, posted a DCCC memo detailing Bennett’s alleged vulnerabilities, including his son’s assault plea, and Bennett later spoke to the blog about the incident. Local media also reported that the DCCC requested records on the case to see if Bennett unduly influenced an outcome of which the victims’ families didn’t approve.

Now this pisses me off for three different reasons. I'm not pissed off at Van Hollen though. He's doing his job and doing a good job at it. He fights dirty, and it works. Democrats have done this more often than not for years and years through the Soros types, Jon Strykers, Tim Hills, and the NAACP's Confederate Flag and James Byrd ads against Bush in 2000.

1. Why aren't we vetting our own? Don't leave an opening for these people. The Arizona GOP chair should have known that his son was a piece of trash and that would have been an issue

2. Why the hell aren't we doing the same thing to them? I'll gaurandamntee there's as much dirt if not more with the democrats. Go check their old addresses and the jurisdictions, public records, the court records in their area, old news clips, and go on and down the list. Get PI's out there. That's not mentioning their voting records. This needs to be done right up and down the line when taking out incumbents or tough challenges.

3. "Lost causes." This pisses me off more than anything else. So because the first choice drops out, the money isn't as there, and it's a lost cause. BULLSHIT. It's a lost cause because the party has turned into a bunch of weak Obama like dickless wonders out there. Hillary's got more balls than almost all of the party leadership in Washington right now. Excuse the strong language, but this fits my definition of time, place, and manner for it. The time is because of the election year. Place because of the situation. Manner to get people to kick the powers that be in the ass. I don't mind the GOP losing if it is defeated. I do mind losing when we defeat ourselves by not showing up. Why are we giving a free pass to Mark Pryor? What happened to 1994? If Steve Stockman of all people could beat a 40 year incumbent in a district won by Bill Clinton, than we should at LEAST win all the districts Bush won in 2004, and should at least compete in any district that is not 60% or more democrat. The modern party could never win a seat in Chicago or San Jose today with ANY candidate? Why? Because there's no guts, and they pray to find a rich guy to run.

If I was a candidate with a low budget campaign, I'd do this.
1. Contact as many 2nd/3rd tier candidates as possible.
2. Run on a new contract with America with a plan for the main issues this group will fight on. These would be the 70-80% issues.
3. Relate those issues for the district.
4. Stick to that message, and use that as the basis for the campaign. Newt Gingrich understood that.
5. Once elected - FIGHT on THOSE issues first, and keep fighting until they pass. KEEP the promises.
6. Once elected - go back to being a republican and not a democrat-lite with the Ted Stevens Pork Barrell Spending.

2008 President - The big issue - SCOTUS

I've gotten a lot of calls and emails by individuals asking me why I have not endorsed candidate x at this time. Right now my ideological side is battling with my pragmatic side, and both have about 50% influence. I'm still a little ornery from the MSU game as I write this, so heads up in advance.

A little bit of background. In 2000, I was not a Republican. I was an independent with libertarian leanings, and very little pragmatism. I still have a bit of the indy streak in me as I vote the person over the party and never voted for a straight ticket (voted for blank and one libertarian judge since the republican wasn't contesting worth a damn). That said, I have not protest voted for a major office since the 2000 Senate race back when I went libertarian. That was before I was a Republican, and the current incumbent's office made the poor decision to directly lie to me. My bloodlines are Irish and I tend to remember things like that.

Back in 2000, I was planning to vote for Harry Browne, the Libertarian. I was not impressed with some of the positions of then Governor Bush. He was vague in his speeches and was not the best communicator. On policy, he remided me too much of Bill Clinton without the scandals. Sometimes I still get that gut feeling. I don't care for GATT with the WTO managing US trade. I'm not much of a nation builder. I don't like the big spending, and don't think the feds have any business in education policy (that's why we have school boards) or health care (prescription drugs) as they always tend to foul things up.

My decision then rested on two things. Janet Reno and the Supreme Court. I did not want to see Al Gore pick 2 or 3 Supreme Court justices. I did not want to see the butcher of Waco appointed for another term at AG. That flipped my vote from Browne to Bush at the last minute.

2004 was easier for me. Nominating the guy that represents literally every single thing wrong with the democrats - John Kerry - makes it an easy choice. For my gripes I have with Bush on several issues, I still have no regrets. On every issue which I disagreed with Bush, Kerry either agreed with him, or was worse.

And now we have a race between Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, Fred Thompson, and Mike Huckabee. I'm real tired of the "I'm conservative too" bullshit soundbytes going on right now, and am looking to see plans, actions, and governmental reforms that are not worse than the problem. Good ole fashion less government. I'm undecided, and will probably stay that way until close to primary day.

But in the end with me, 2008 comes down to one issue over anything else. SCOTUS. "The Supreme Court of the United States." We are maybe one, if not two justices away from a constitutionalist court, getting the 10th amendment back, regaining our 2nd amendment rights (Parker v DC is a big case right now which has been appealed to SCOTUS), and delegating the abortion issue (Overturning the Lochner cases of our time - Doe v Bolton and Roe v Wade) and their successors to the states where it belongs. Unlike what the media portrays, overturning Roe and Doe do not ban abortions, but put the issue where it belongs on 10th amendment grounds - to the states and the people.

The ages of the SCOTUS justices:
Stevens - 87
Ginsburg - 74
Scalia - 71
Kennedy - 71
Breyer - 69
Souter - 68
Thomas - 59
Alito - 57
Roberts (chief) - 52

I know people are living a long time these days, but when half of the justices are in their 70's, that means there could be a lot of retirements. I really do not want to see a bunch of Breyer clones about 50 years old serving for thirty-five years, who do not follow constitution, but either create or ignore rights that should be considered "political questions."

Granted, not all of the conservatives or liberals are lockstep with one another. Even Justice Thomas (who I agree with the most on judicial issues) and Scalia sometimes disagee. Chief Justice Roberts has impressed me so far with his decisions/dissents. It is too early to tell with Justice Alito. I just hope the next few justices follow the constitution as it is written and to return the commerce clause to its original meaning and substanstive due process to its pre-Lochner (even though I agree with the Lochner philospohy, it was not the business of the federal government - I am consistent) meaning.

I'd like to see the next Justice of the Supreme Court be Alex Kozinski, or someone on that line. Will that happen? I don't know.

Which presidential candidate will move us towards that direction? It certainly isn't the democrats - even Richardson and Gravel who I don't mind on a personal level, but simply can not vote for due to policy reasons. Will the Republican candidates do so? That's what I still need to figure out, especially in the cases of Giuliani, Huckabee, and Romney. The senators have a record on this issue, good or bad, in their confirmation votes.

This is my 2008 litmus test. A constitutionalist court.