|
but there will always be two sides in an election, and the two parties will split around key issues. The Republicans, I believe, will abandon their narrow focus and go after a coalition of moderate religious folk, moderate moral conservatives, the semi-libertarian sort who dislike government but don't want to destroy it, and "fiscal conservatives" in their fold, while drifting towards the center and away from the neo-con, religio-fascist thugs they currently sleep with. They'll talk balanced budget and lower taxes, but not Reaganomics. Or they may talk Reaganomics just to work Herr Fascist Thug into the discussion, but their idea of Reaganomics will be closer to the Buckley style of low taxes and low spending than the Reagan/W/Cheney style of low taxes and spending out the wazoo.
Sad for them, I think McCain as he campaigned in 2000 might have been the exact candidate they needed this time, but McCain had allied himself too closely with the BushCo/PNAC syndicate. They provided him with donors and an easy electoral base, and he took it, only to find that he could not drift back towards the center. We have Barr to thank for that, and Ron Paul--though I won't be thanking either personally. So, his alliance with the far right made the center not trust him (or not even listen to him), and he lost. He would have done worse if not for his racist thuggery in the last few days.
Back to your idea for an Hispanic woman on the Court. Cool idea. "Hispanic" is not a defining term--there are many different groups that fall into that category, from Mexican immigrants to Cuban refugees to Texans and Arizonans and Californians who have lived here since we stole the territory from Mexico and who maintain a cultural identity. These groups have some common interests, but are from a homogeneous group (I'm sure you know this, but it relates to the point I'm eventually going to get around to making). Some are conservative Catholics, some are educated elite, some are poverty-level laborers... It's just not a single group. They are united mostly by outward perceptions of them. In any South or Central American nation, they would not exist as a distinct group in that way.
My point, finally, is that the are the fastest growing demographic and both parties will try to court them. And, both parties will slowly be taken over by them, or at least heavily influenced. If Obama appoints an Hispanic female Justice, that will appeal on one level to everyone perceived to be of Hispanic decent in America. On other levels, though, there will still be the usual debates over abortion, guns, Affirmative Action, and all other issues. So Obama might get some brownie points for such an appointment, but it won't destroy the Republicans or move all Hispanic voters to the Democratic Party. Issues will still be issues.
It's still a good idea if there is a qualified Hispanic female judge. I can't imagine there isn't, but she should be equally qualified to anyone else he could appoint. The Supreme Court should look more like America, and America is not all old white males anymore. Without diversity in government, how can we have honest representation?
Next, how about a gay Justice? I'm thinking Obama might get a chance at several seats. Souter has talked about retirement, Stephens wanted to retire eight years ago, Ginsburg will be 79 at the end of four years of Obama, and Breyer and Kennedy are in their early 70s. Even a four year Obama term might see three retirements. In eight years, he could replace all five. For that matter, Scalia is 72, and though he'll try to hang on, who knows what he'll decide. If he's looking at hanging on until he's 80, and even then maybe seeing another four years of Dem rule, he could decide it's not in him. And if he steps down, who would pull Thomas's mouth-strings?
Damn, this is too fun. I guess I'll stop typing now, because I've got another few chapters in me, if I don't stop now. :)
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
