Perhaps the worst thing about Barak Obama’s re-election is that he has an excellent chance of making appointments to the US Supreme Court, so that it has a liberal majority. Here’s an excellent commentary by Half Sigma, an American blogger, on this topic.
A certain commenter said that it doesn’t matter who appoints Supreme Court Justices because the current Supreme Court hasn’t declared Obamacare to be unconstitutional and they haven’t overruled Roe v. Wade, so it doesn’t matter.
This viewpoint is incredibly wrong. And based on a misunderstanding of the philosophy of the conservative justices, which is basically:
(1) uphold stare decisis (in other words, previous Supreme Court precedent);
(2) enforce the original intent of the Constitution, unless that conflicts with stare decisis, and
(3) enforce statutory intent, unless of course that conflicts with the first two.
And you know what? The conservative Supreme Court has done this for the last three decades!
Do you know what happened before we had a conservative Supreme Court? We had a liberal supreme court which ignored precedents, ignored the Constitution, and ignored statutory intent, in order to implement their liberal vision.
Liberal control of the Supreme Court meant that the Court could move society to the left even though there was not enough support to get laws passed that would do that. ... They discovered a constitutional right to contraception. And then a constitutional right to abortion.
It’s foolish to think that if liberals get control of the Supreme Court, they won’t revert to their earlier ways and use that power to do liberal things that can’t get done though the regular political process. What is likely to happen?
Among many other changes, it will become unconstitutional to deny gays the right to marry.
And freedom of speech won’t apply to “hate speech.” And then this blog gets outlawed. The end.