Future Supreme Court Picks

The next president could choose up to five Supreme Court Justices.


Hillary Clinton and her fellow progressives shout things like "Health care is a right!" They've also said that education, decent housing and child care are "rights."

The United Nations goes further. Its bureaucrats declared that every person has a "right" to rest and leisure, food, clothing, housing, "necessary" social services, free education, periodic holidays with pay and protection from unemployment.

Wow. I guess Abe Lincoln, Thomas Edison and Mark Zuckerberg were denied basic human rights.

Clinton and the U.N. busybodies are wrong. Health care, housing and food are not "rights." They are "gifts" bestowed by politicians. These "gifts" violate other people's rights because politicians take from people to give to favored groups.

When America's founders talked about rights, they had something else in mind.

In the Bill of Rights, each right is a right to not be meddled with, a right to be free from government—the right not to have your speech abridged, your religion banned, your guns taken or your property searched without a warrant.

The founders were tired of kings and dictators bossing them around. In their new country, they wanted to vote for presidents and other officials. But they also knew that over time even elected officials lust for more power. So they wanted clear limits on what those officials could do.

They created three branches of government—to check each other.

"Gridlock is a feature, not a bug," says Ilya Shapiro, editor-in-chief of the Cato Institute's Supreme Court Review journal. "The founding system was not to make government more efficient. It was meant to pass policies that have large agreement that's sustained across time."

Because presidents think Congress is failing when it doesn't pass legislation they like, they nominate Supreme Court justices who may give them leeway. Franklin Roosevelt tried to increase the size of the Court to squeeze in more justices who supported his programs. George W. Bush nominated his own White House Counsel.

The media call President Obama's current nominee, Merrick Garland, "a centrist." But he is "centrist" only in that he sides with Democrats who want to ban guns and Republicans who want government left free to do most anything in Guantanamo Bay. Garland repeatedly supports increased government power—and fewer checks.

Shapiro went to Chicago Law School when Obama was a professor there. He says Obama understands the limits the Constitution places on presidents but ignores them. He ignores them so often that the Supreme Court has overruled Obama unanimously more often than any modern president.

When Congress rejected Obama's immigration plan, he just imposed it via executive order. The Supreme Court overturned that, but the final vote blocking it was close, 4-4. But what will the next court do?

I hope Hillary Clinton doesn't get to replace Justice Scalia because she sounds a lot like President Obama. On her website, she says things like, "If Congress won't act, I will ask the Treasury Department… to use its regulatory authority!"

Donald Trump is no better. He says he'll impose the death penalty on anyone who kills a cop.

"But the executive has no say over that," points out Shapiro.

Presidents cannot pass laws. They execute laws passed by Congress. Congress is supposed to reject legislation it doesn't like. That's its job. Most legislation is bad.

Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson understands that. The Libertarian presidential candidate promises to only appoint judges who will ask whether any power or program proposed by the government can be found in the Constitution.

One judge he mentions as a possible Supreme Court pick is Fox commentator, Judge Andrew Napolitano.

"I'm flattered by that," says Napolitano. "Johnson would clearly choose a small government, maximum individual-freedom court."

Gary Johnson understands that the Constitution keeps us free by restraining government.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, like many politicians, treat the Constitution as an annoying obstacle.

It is an obstacle to their plans. Good.

But I worry. The current court is not young. Our next president may get to choose five new justices.


NEXT: It Doesn't Matter Who Started Birtherism; What Matters Is Who Seized It

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. First!!!!!!!

    1. I'd like to thank my parents, my grandparents, my neighbors, Jesus, Krishna, the bartender at the Mexican place across the street...

      1. Anybody can earn 450$+ daily... You can earn from 9000-14000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job...It's easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish... It's a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity.. go to this site home tab for more detail... http://goo.gl/jPtLqx

      2. Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail,,,,.,.,.,

        ------------------>>> http://www.4cyberworks.com

    2. I'm genuinely surprised you haven't heard from one of the self important assholes who thinks that they can make up rules that designate what constitutes a first post.

      What kind of fucking loser does that?

      1. The rules and the recognition only apply to lynx threads.

        And all communities have rules and traditions.

        1. No you fucking loser, the "rules" don't apply at all.

          1. you clearly don't get the concept of emergence. Such a sad little troll.

            1. What emergence loser?

              Tonio made a stupid fucking declaration and you and a few other losers swallowed it whole.

              The rest of us laugh at how fucking pathetic the whole thing is.

              1. Have you already exhausted your repertoire of insults? Get creative man, otherwise you're boring to poke fun at.

                Where's the inspiration? You think you're going to get a rise out of anyone here by declaring people to be 'losers'? I'm going to be disappointed if you turn out to be a one-trick troll.

                1. Are you ACTUALLY BUTTHURT about this?

                  Holy shit you are!!!!

                  I make fun of your stupid little game and you are ACTUALLY BUTTHURT ABOUT IT.

                  Thanks, guy, you made my day.

                  1. No, the laughing at you hasn't caused any pain yet, mostly a chuckle.

                    Come on man, are you even trying?

                    1. "No"

                      Oh my god you are!!!

                    2. *golfclap* either you've convinced yourself of the opposite of reality, or you've upped your game, congrats either way.

                    3. I was totally just fucking around but holy shit man, you are actually upset about being made fun of.

                      Get a fucking hobby, like trolling self important assholes.

                    4. I'm throwing the flag on this one - you know the rules are you only are allowed to poke the troll twice before you're required to make a reference to Winston's mom.

                    5. Aww...

                      *kicks pebble and walks away*

                    6. See, that's what you should have done from the start, and you wouldn't be so butthurt.

                    7. You do only have a handful of tricks don't you?

                      Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

                    8. I agree, trolling you was.

                  2. And yet, here you are, getting butthurt over his butthurt. I guess that makes you the sore asshole here.

                    1. "And yet, here you are, getting butthurt over his butthurt. I guess that makes you the sore asshole here."

                      So, I guess that means your butthurt makes you??


                    2. Welcome to Retardation: A Celebration. Now, hopefully, I'm gonna dispel a few myths, a few rumors. First off, the retarded don't rule the night. They don't rule it. Nobody does. And they don't run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don't lock eyes with 'em, don't do it. Puts 'em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

                    3. This has gotten completely out of hand.

                      I can't handle this many retards, I'm not Winston's mom.

                    4. Dreams are a great thing, but you know something? They take a lot of energy. But that's OK. There's a job waiting for you down the block from your house that doesn't require a thought in your head or a hope in your heart. So come on down and work for the artificial flower factory. Why fight it? OK? Thank you.

                    5. Ah, OK - I've got it now. You're doing this 'meme'.


    3. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do,

  2. Ahem, anyway, it's not quite as bad as Stossel seems to think as two of the Justices most liable to die/retire in the next 4-8 years are Ginzburg and Breyer. Thomas and Alito are still not that old, so Hillary might just be lucky to get Kennedy. At worse (most likely), we'll see a 6-3 hard line progressive majority, though I guess one can argue that at that point it may as well be 9-0. If this Garland guy actually takes Scalia's seat one might hope he'll end up being more of a Kennedy type judge than a dyed in the wool leftist like Kagan, Breyer, etc.

    1. Funny, I talk about Ginsburg dying soon and needing to be replaced. She really messed up and didn't retire when the Dems held the Senate in 2008-2010. Typical bureaucrat narcissism that nobody else could have possibly decided cases, so the SCOTUS "needed" her.

      I don't think people realize how slanted the court is toward federal power. It is a real shitshow for constitutional rights at the Court because even some conservative justices are siding with the statists. We need a Constitutionalist justice to replace Scalia and another to replace Ginsburg when she croaks. Two Constitutionalists and Thomas would hopefully keep Roberts, Alito and Kennedy on the conservative rails.

      It will still take decades to throw out some of the horrible jurisprudence drivel put to paper in the last decades.

      1. Shit, if Hillary wins it's game over. We won't be able to "unravel" all the bad decisions without taking down the country too. But at that point what difference will it make??!!

    2. Alito is also an asshole. Just a different kind.

      1. We need assholes on the court willing to say the constitution still means what it says.

  3. So Merrick (sounds like a game of thrones name) thinks his old constitutional law professor "knows the constitution"? Can't argue with that

  4. Judge Nap would be awesome. All opinions start with "What if..."

    1. The lack of evidence that he can write a declarative sentence isn't evidence that he can't...

      1. I've seen articles from him without question marks at all...

        It was scary.

  5. Semi-related - Senator Sherrod Brown was just on CNN whining and complaining about whatever the latest crap is the DoJ is up to and how they really need to be made to clean up their act and Cuomo actually had the nerve to ask him that, as a Senator, doesn't Brown kinda sorta have a little influence on what the DoJ does and how they do it? Brown seemed to be a little taken aback by the question.

    1. In Sen. Brown's defense, the State Department and IRS have both told Congress to go pound sand. Why would the DOJ be different?

      1. Congress seems to have completely forgotten its "power of the pursestrings".

        1. But... that would require not spending money!

          1. *** reaches across aisle to do something ***

            1. ***...and spend money ***

              They always have to spend so much money!

  6. Trump ... says he'll impose the death penalty on anyone who kills a cop.

    "But the executive has no say over that," points out Shapiro.

    Then why are they called *execute*-ives?

    1. Shapiro is wrong.

      Obama has already said he reserves the *right* (not privilege) to execute American citizens suspected of being terrorist even inside the US.

      Don't worry though, they'll get their day in (secret) court and (not) be able to challenge the evidence against them before the sentence is carried out.

    2. "But the executive has no say over that," points out Shapiro.

      What, he thinks Trump won't have a pen and a phone?

      1. +1 compelling government interest

  7. Alright, my suggested picks:

    * Judge Napolitano
    * Eugene Volokh
    * Janice Rogers Brown
    * Glenn H. Reynolds
    * Clint Bolick

    1. Darn, I didn't make the list.

      1. Didn't know you were a lawyer. Tell you what, I'll put you in the pool for backup choices.

        1. You don't need to be a lawyer to be a Supreme Court Justice. In fact, I believe that people who are not lawyers but have a strong loyalty to the constitution would serve better.

          1. I agree. Non-lawyers would be less likely to "interpret" the constitution based on previous opinions and more likely to rely on the actual written words of the constitution as understood at the time it was written.

            1. " more likely to rely on the actual written words of the constitution as understood at the time it was written."

              We certainly need more of that.

              What is called "Constitutional law" today is mostly nothing more than a house of cards of stacks of stuff made up out of whole cloth and supposedly considered settled and inviolate "precedent"

          2. You don't even have to be a high school graduate.

          3. There are no Constitutional restrictions on who can be a Supreme Court justice, except they can only serve on "good behavior".

    2. Who is this Clit Ball Lick person?

      1. And why did his parents hate him so?

    3. Janice Rogers Brown would be the best pick of that group.

      A black woman who ISN'T a liberal and who (correctly) believes that FDR's "New Deal" is unconsitutional.

      Liberals would be twisting themselves into knots trying to rationalize their "diversity" hypocrisy in opposing her.

      1. They'd just 'Clarence Thomas' her. See, it's perfectly fine when rich white liberals disparage a minority for having 'wrong thoughts', because they're our betters.

        The blatant racism that left of center publications and politicians have directed toward Clarence Thomas is their way of warning minorities: "think like us or we'll ostracize you from our cocktail parties"

        1. They cannot stand him and he cannot stand them.

          Try talking to a liberal about Clarence Thomas being a black conservative and watch their heads explode. It just does not compute that a black man would not follow their racist progressive bullshit.

    4. Can we add Rand Paul to that list?

      1. Chuck Norris. He would still win a 1-8 decision.

    5. Add Mike Lee and David B. Kopel to that list.

      1. +1 Mike Lee!

  8. "Gridlock is a feature, not a bug," says Ilya Shapiro, editor-in-chief of the Cato Institute's Supreme Court Review journal. "The founding system was not to make government more efficient. It was meant to pass policies that have large agreement that's Call Letter 2016 sustained across time."

  9. First off: Stossel is the best spokesman for libertarians, by far. His plain spoken logic endeared him with Americans when he was on 20/20 and now he's doing the same thing for a movement that was once considered 'fringe'.

    Second: Johnson finally said something good, by saying he'd appoint Judge Napolitano. Someone must have sat him down and said: "You got to throw a bone to the true believers or you got nothing".

    1. Stossel is pretty good. I just always weary of ex-liberals who fought so hard for that cause to suddenly find freedom, free market and small government. He has pretty much admitted to being stupid and realized the errors of the progressive way. If you listen closely to him, he still hangs on to some Nanny-State shit. Stossel does not think domestic surveillance is that bad. It does not make his 100 list.

      He is a decent Libertarian entertainer, which is rare.

      1. Stossel made his mark going after companies doing bad things to the public and consumers. I greatly admire that he figured out that the real con artists and scoundrels were actually in our government...

  10. Since the "separation of powers" has been vacated, the liberal senate would not veto unconstitutional choices of a puppet president (like obama). The constitution clearly delineates the powers of the legislative, judicial and executive branches, but since all three do not follow the Constitution as they swear to do with their oath of office, we are degenerating into an oligarchy which will be ruled by the New World Order. Johnson is correct on most of the Constitution but has flawed ideas with his "open borders" policy.

  11. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

    ??? http://www.NetNote70.com

  12. Thank you a lot for taking the time for you to share such a good information. I in fact choose to reading your post.


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.