Since when has there been a quota for the Supreme Court?

It used to be enough for the left to defend quotas in front of the Supreme Court, discount viagra and now it looks like what they want is a quota FOR the Supreme Court.

Isn’t that really what all this talk of maintaining “balance” and the importance of the “swing vote” really means?

At the risk of repeating what we all already know: the court currently breaks down into four conservatives, four liberals, and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor – the sacred “swing vote.”

By arguing that O’Connor must be replaced with someone exactly like her, isn’t the left really saying they want to maintain a de facto quota for the Supreme Court?

Where did this weird fallacy arise?

Who decided that there must be a swing vote?

Why can’t there be a solid conservative (or liberal) majority on the Court?

And who decided that the Supreme Court was currently “balanced?”

Personally, I think the Supreme Court has been tilted too far to the left for decades.

Moving it in the other direction won’t be “tilting” it…it’ll be righting it.

And let’s just recap shall we?

The Republicans won the Whitehouse.

The Republicans won the Senate.

The Republicans won the House.

And they’ve won the right to appoint a conservative to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is not a consolation prize.

The left does not get to keep control of it just because they keep losing everywhere else.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was a “swing vote” who kept giving the liberals what they wanted.

If it’s any consolation for them, “her” seat will still be a swing vote.

Just now, it will swing the other way.

1 comment January 8th, 2006