There has been a significant amount of unhappiness and even outrage within the progressive blogosphere are the direction the campaign for Congress has taken in recent months. The likely Democratic Senatorial nominee in Pennsylvania does not fall in line with the party's stance on abortion, a highly charismatic, though somewhat unpolished candidate in Ohio is no longer running for the Democratic Senatorial nomination in that state, and the possibility remains that the blogosphere's favored candidate in the Montana Senate race will not receive his party's nomination. The list goes on.
Some of us in the progressive wing of the blogosphere have contemplated staying home on election day rather than supporting the eventual Democratic nominee in the state. Why, if my candidate did not gain the party nomination -- for whatever reason -- should I go to the polls on election day, let alone try to organize or work to get out the vote in the coming months? The answer comes, from all places, the regressive conservative Paul Weyrich.
In his column today for The National Ledger, Weyrich discusses the possibility that the tenure of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens might not last until the next Presidential election. Weyrich writes,
[The] rumor is that President George W. Bush will have another vacancy on the Supreme Court when the term ends this coming June.One Senator claims he has specific knowledge that the vacancy is coming. The speculation revolves around 85-year-old Associate Justice John Paul Stevens.
Is there any particular reason to believe that Paul Weyrich has genuine insider information about John Paul Stevens' future on the Supreme Court? No, so let's get that out of the way.
What Weyrich does with this column, however, is to remind those on both sides of the aisle just what the stakes are this November. This isn't just about Iraq, this isn't just about Social Security, this isn't just about healthcare -- though it is about these things to a great extent -- this is also about the future of American jurisprudence. The next Associate Justics of the United States Supreme Court will have immense sway over the direction of the court, particularly if the next vacancy comes from the seat held by John Paul Steven, or that of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for that matter.
Will a Bob Casey vote to stop the nomination of an extreme conservative to the Court? It's not entirely clear, though his track record of voicing support for Bush's nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito does not provide much hope that he will vote to uphold a woman's right to choose, for instance. But with Bob Casey in the United States Senate, along with Democrats in red states like Missouri, Ohio, Montana, and maybe even Arizona, Virginia and Nevada, Patrick Leahy could chair the next hearing on the nomination to the Supreme Court. Without Bob Casey and other moderate or conservative red state Dems, Arlen Specter could have yet another opportunity to prove that he can cave to the Bush administration when push comes to shove.
Is it enjoyable to hold your nose and vote for a candidate you did not support during the primary campaign? Usually not, no. But if the potential reward is a Democratic-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee while the potential downside is another Samuel Alito or two on the Supreme Court, I know that I'd be voting for a Democratic Senate instead of a Republican Senate in the 110th Congress.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 114 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
