“Courting” the Presidential Election

Thanks, Laura Beth, for the invitation to join this blog.  (As those of you who know her recognize, it is very difficult to say no to Laura Beth Nielsen.)

Sitting here six days from Super Tuesday, and with the Republican and Democratic fields each losing a candidate today, I’m struck by how little we have heard about the U.S. Supreme Court in the campaign so far.  It hardly takes an actuary to recognize that the next president is likely to have two, if not more, seats to fill on the Court, and the open seats are likely to come from the left side of the bench.

Why hasn’t this issue gotten much attention so far?  It would seem to be the kind of “red meat” topic that would lure the faithful to come vote.


3 Responses to “Courting” the Presidential Election

  1. laurabethnielsen says:

    It’s like you read my mind, Jon. I was just talking about the court and the candidates this morning. Bob pointed out to me that in McCain’s victory speech last night he invoked the rule of law and how that means appointing judges to the courts who will interpret not make law. I love the idea that there is a difference (see my long post in the gun thread) and that this is somehow a rule of law priciple. I missed that in my reading of political theory in grad school!

  2. jeffaregularworkinglawyer says:

    Because while the faithful on both sides of the spectrum certainly do care, it’s not an issue that really resonates with the persuadable middle — surprising as that may be to those of us in the legal profession, or who remember a certain 5-4 opinion in December 2000.

    McCain needs to reach out to the Republican right, which has threatened to stay home if he is nominated, so he is throwing some of their code on judges their way. You’ll see more red meat from him, I bet. The number of lefties who would stay home rather than vote for Clinton or Obama is much smaller. And Ralph Nader isn’t running. Because what do you know, there is a difference, after all. So neither Clinton nor Obama have a lot of incentive to hit the issues that resonate most strongly with the base rather than the center.

  3. jeffaregularworkinglawyer says:

    What I said about Ralph Nader not running? Never mind. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: