Get Ready for a More Conservative Supreme Court

From the Washington Post courtesy of TruthDig:

Nonetheless, it’s entirely possible that a more conservative court could be Obama’s paradoxical legacy—particularly if he serves only a single term. The likelihood of the court shifting to the right is greater than that of its moving leftward.

In part, this could have been predicted even before Obama took office. It reflects less about him than it does the identity of the departing justices, one liberal followed by another. The next oldest justice is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 77. Conservatives are reaping the benefits of Bush father and son having selected justices who were relatively young. Justice Clarence Thomas was 43 when tapped, Chief Justice John Roberts was 50, and Justice Samuel Alito was 55.

More here.

This is a classic example of how establishment wisdom functions: bend over backward to avoid referencing the elephant in the middle of the living room. That is, this Washington Post op-ed totally makes the right conclusion, that Obama is certain to pick a nominee who is more conservative than Stevens, but for reasons that are virtually insignificant when compared to the real reason.

It is impossible for Obama to nominate, and for the Senate to approve, a liberal for the Supreme Court. For starters, the President, in spite of the endless assertions of right-wing nut cases, is simply not a liberal, and is in no way inclined to pick one for this Presidential legacy position. Even if he was a liberal, the Democrats who control the Senate are not. They don't want a liberal, either. And even if Senate Democrats leaned left, Senate Republicans, who are already threatening to filibuster the nomination, even though they have no idea who it will be, would never let it happen. They'd blow up Washington first.

This is the real reason the Court will move to the right with whoever takes Stevens' place: liberals are essentially powerless in our nation's capitol. I mean sure, the issues brought up in the WaPo essay, relative age and ideology of sitting Justices, historical trends, Obama's damnable urge to find "the middle" of any and all controversies, all that shit, will no doubt play some sort of role in the final decision. But by far the biggest factor is that nobody in Washington wants a liberal to sit on the Supreme Court. Why can't the power establishment just admit it?

You know, this is particularly disturbing because Stevens isn't even a liberal. He's a moderate, nominated by Gerald Ford, a Republican President. It's simply that thirty years of right-wing ideological terrorism has redefined what we think of as liberal and conservative. That is, these days "liberal" means right-moderate, and "conservative" means far-right reactionary extremist. I mean, shit, if we hadn't been suffering this awful realignment of the political spectrum for so long, I'd be considered a moderate, myself, maybe even having fun taking pot shots at real liberals, communists, anarchists, socialists, that sort of thing.

Everything is so fucked up. This isn't the world I thought I'd be inheriting.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$