22 votes

The most liberal justices of the postwar era were actually named by Republican presidents

Another reason why the Republican Party can go to hell:

"The Supreme Court was poised to deliver conservatives a major victory by overturning a hated liberal policy with little basis in the Constitution. A majority of the justices had been appointed by Republican presidents. Some of them were so conservative that Senate Democrats had attempted to prevent their confirmation.

Yet when the much anticipated ruling was finally handed down, the liberal policy was upheld with fairly minor caveats.
A Republican-appointed justice unexpectedly voted with the liberal bloc. Instead of a victory, conservatives feared they had endured a permanent defeat on an important issue, and in an election year to boot.

While this certainly describes the past day’s events, it was also true 20 years ago. ... Earl Warren, William Brennan, John Paul Stevens, David Souter—some of THE MOST LIBERAL JUSTICES OF THE POSTWAR ERA WERE ACTUALLY NAMED BY REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS."


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


When I try to tell people that Romney won't save us from Obamacare they say "Yes he will, he promised!" Does anyone out there have any videos showing Romney praising Obamacare before it was voted on the other day? I know he created the blueprint for it but I need something that SHOWS it from the horses mouth.


He did it

To force people to vote for Romney.

"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing." - Andrew Jackson

So you're better than Romnecans, but you're still too partisan

The SCOTUS ruling had absolutely nothing to do with conservative or liberal views... The judges, along with virtually every elected official in DC are owned by corporations and wealthy individuals.

This ruling is about what benefits the corporations... Don't call this a "liberal" or "big government" move because that's not what it is... and perpetuating this falsehood only serves to divide the few Americans who are actually awake.

This move, just like the recent Citizens united II ruling is based purely on what will keep the establishment in power. This establishment isn't just republican or democrat, it's #Republicrat.

Call it what it is: FASCISM
or if you wanna be creative: Corporate Feudalism

At their inceptions, the #Liberty, #OccupyWallStreet and #TeaParty movements all had the same basic goal... What happened?

The point is this article is

The point is this article is great to show your neocon republican friends because it undercuts the argument that "we have to vote republican to get conservatives on the suprreme court." I hear that all the time. This shows that, once again, republican and democrat, liberal or conservative, once in power they all do the exact same thing-grab more power for the government and shrink freedom. Not a dime's worth of difference. People on this site may understand that but the foxnews crowd still thinks there is some vast difference between the two.

Yep. It is why I REFUSE to vote for Mitt Romney.

He is worse than Obama.


Kind of sad that the best the

Kind of sad that the best the republicans can do is a Massachussetts socialist who's further to the left than Ted Kennedy.

yeah but compare

the best conservative justices..i'm pretty sure none of them were appointed by DemocRats. Kennedy wanted to strike down the entire law, so it's not quite so simple.


While the conservative

While the conservative justices generally tend to be better on economic matters (though this is not always the case, as we saw with Roberts in this case, and Scalia in Raich) and guns, they're often worse on matters of privacy and other civil liberties. In the end, I think all the justices have made a lot of decisions that libertarians and Constitutionalists would object to


Imagine that.