If You Feel Compelled to Vote for Sen. Obama . . .

. . . I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that Sen. Obama will win the Democratic party's nomination. I know that runs counter to current convential wisdom, but as this becomes a two person race, Sen. Obama's positives will become greater just as Sen. Clinton becomes swamped by her negatives.

There's a huge segment of folks who feel compelled to vote for The Obama, for The Obama shall wash away your past sins of prejudice. I think that was one of the dynamics at play in Iowa (which was helped by the public nature of a Caucus), and this dynamic will strengthen rather than recede as the race goes on.

Rather than counsel you against voting for The Obama, I won't challenge your need for feeling good about yourself, but I will ask that you do one small thing for the country should your compulsion to elect Sen. Obama overwhelm you.

Please, pretty please, pretty please with sugar, a cherry, and a pink pony on top, please split your ticket. If you must give back the executive branch to the Dems, then for pity's sake ensure that both the House and Senate are controlled by moderate Republicans.

If the Dems get a fillibuster proof Senate, plus keep the House, and add the executive branch to their spoils, then you can add the judicial branch over the next 20 years minimum to their prizes as well.

In that scenario, expect Breyer, Ginsberg and Stevens to all retire before the 2010 election. You'll have 'progressive' jurists in their 40s or early 50s entrenched on the court, and with current life expectancies, you can expect them to remain on the court for close to half a century.

Do we really want a "living constitution" to be the dominant view of the Supreme Court from now till 2050? If any of the current conservatives leave the court or fall ill over the next 8 years, then expect the entire judiciary to resemble the Ninth Circuit. Rather than a judicial body, the Supreme Court would become a supra-legislature, unelected, unresponsive to popular will (not always a bad thing, admittedly), and free to impose policy from the bench.

Is that something that appeals to you?

Random Thought Processes of the Day

While taking a trip through the blogosphere, this link title at Hugh Hewitt caught my eye, "Conrad Burns and the Future of the United States Supreme Court".

The original post isn't what I found interesting, rather the wild tangent it set off in my head is what I find amusing.

Which fictional characters would you like to see on the Supreme Court?

This isn't a point A to point B digression obviously. How did I get to that question from that headline? C. Montgomery Burns, that's how. Imagine him on the Supreme Court. First, he seems to be nearly immortal, so even though he's already at least 120, he could be on the court for like another 120 years. Secondly, C. M. Burns would probably be an originalist, afterall it's possible he was actually around when the founding fathers were drafting the constitution. Thirdly, he'd be dispassionate, that's for sure. So he's not a lawyer, I won't hold that against him.

Now, my fictional nine.

Chief Justice Spock
(you want logic, I've got your logic right here)
Associate Justice Harvey Birdman
(every court needs a jester)
Associate Justice C. Montgomery Burns
(you'd get your money's worth appointing him to a lifetime appointment)
Associate Justice Ben Matlock
(country lawyer on the court, nothing better)
Associate Justice Joe Friday
(just the facts, ma'am)
Associate Justice Esther Anderson
(don't take no crap from noone, common sense)
Associate Justice Zoe Washburne
(more not taking crap, plus she can kick-ass)
Associate Justice Hugo "Hurley" Reyes
(adds a little compassionate everyman-ness to the court for balance)
Associate Justice Ling Woo
(evil? sure, but she did make Judge at a very young age, and you need at least one judge on the court)

Now tell me that those folks wouldn't rock as a Supreme Court?

(and talk about diversity!)