Then that would allow those from Brazil.
How about a male stripper, like the late Earl Warren? 
Why is it a “given” that Obama will pick a pro-choice candidate, but when a GOP President picks a nominee he has to continually insist that there is “no litmus test” and that he is picking the “best qualified person” who is a “strict constructionist”?
If there is the slightest hint that pro-life decisions are in his past, that is a disqualifier, but it is obvious that Obama will pick a pro-choice judge…
Because wanting an anti-choice jurist on the Supreme Court implies a desire to overturn settled case law? And maybe Senators want jurists who have respect for precedent?
Be fair now (which after all is the SC’s job too): Respect for precedent is good, sure, but it is not the same as being bound by it. The Court’s responsibility is *justice *- and precedent, and the letter of the law, are not necessarily congruent with justice. Applying the law to cases is the function of the lower courts. The Supremes are for resolving constitutional issues, including conflicts between them, and correcting deviations of the law from the principles of the Constitution.
Because it’s so much fun to watch them squirm while they lie. Nobody really believes that crap; it’s a cover story for the Religious Right to avoid admitting that since they have failed with their attempts at persuasion (and are unwilling to be persuaded in turn), they are willing to achieve their agenda instead by court-packing. It’s been a very effective tactic, since defeating it requires Senators to accuse not only the President but the nominee of lying.
Precedent? What about Plessy v. Ferguson or Bowers v. Hardwick? Where was the outrage over the sacred principle of stare decisis being violated?
Hell, people in this thread are talking about a Justice to overturn Heller.
Admit it: you have respect for precedent when you agree with what it set. When you disagree with it, you see a need to overturn it.
Just like the right does…
I disagree with that. Do you think that if it was up to democratically elected state legislatures, we would have the same abortion laws that we do today? I think that the general public, while certainly not believing what the religious right does, is not in favor of unlimited abortion on demand…
No, because legislatures are subject to numerous pressures, often ones leading to injustice, that life-appointed judges are not. That’s partly why the Court was established.
There’s a great Oliver Wendell Holmes quote on point. He’s walking to the court, and a friend stops him and says, “So, you are about to do justice”, and he answers “No, I am going to administer the law.”
What a great quote Cap’n! Exactly spot on. The court does not presume to administer justice, or to decide what justice is. The court interprets the laws and the intents of the laws whether they feel such laws and such intents are just or not. Precedent is an important part but not the only part of that process. If they believe the laws are unjust or poorly written, oh well. Changing the laws is the Congress’s job.
But different jurists have different biases in how they make those interpretations. Currently the court has a bias way to the Right of where the court has been in average in history and to the Right of America at large. Allowing it to go further that direction by choosing someone more conservative than Bader-Ginsburg (assuming her hypothetical loss from the court) would place the SC farther outside of historic norms.
Sometimes a court may decide that precedent was a faulty decision based on excessive biases by a past court. Would new judges end up believing that past SC decisions fell into that group? And overturn Roe v Wade (if it moves even a bit farther to the Right) or Heller (if it moved very Leftward)? Those are the concerns of the different poles and they are not crazy thoughts. The former is however more of a realistic one.
It’s traditional for both candidates to insist there is no litmus test while saying they won’t appoint anyone with the wrong judicial philosophy. “I won’t have a litmus test” means nothing and nobody believes it.
Nice. 
There’s another story about Holmes, and what he did for mental exercise. He’d ask his clerks to pick a case, any case, and a legal principle, any principle. He’d then write rulings both ways based on that same principle.
Where the *hell *did you get that? The Court has stricken laws outright for unconstitutionality quite routinely. It has defined details of meaning of statutes, via case law, even more routinely. What the hell do you think it’s for? :dubious:
What makes you think that we have unlimited abortion on demand?
The court is for interpreting the laws as they are written including dealing with contradictions in it. Voiding something that is unconstitutional is interpreting the law - which includes which aspect of the law takes precedence. If one part of the law goes against a more basic part of the law then the basic part takes precedence. Nothing to do with justice, just proper interpretation of the laws. If some part of the Constitution is unjust then there are methods to change it, and once changed the Court will be bound to interpret according to that change - not by their understanding of what would qualify as justice.
Only the lower courts, as already stated. The Supremes have a broader, more diffuse mandate.
That is as overbroad an understanding as is Bricker’s that it is “making” law is overnarrow. It requires equating the law with the Constitution, a very central distinction. But if that’s what it takes for you …
No, DSeid is right. The Constitution is a law and the Supreme Court interprets it as such. The only distinction of the Constiution is that it is the primary law of the United States. If there is a contradiction between what the Constitution says and any other law, the court has to issue a ruling that follows what the Constitution says.