June 27th, 2008
04:55 PM ET

Will future of Supreme Court weigh on your vote for prez?


FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

There's no shortage of issues concerning Americans when it comes to their vote for president in November: the economy, skyrocketing gas prices, Iraq, health care, and more.

But perhaps as important as any of these is the future of the Supreme Court of the United States. In recent weeks, the high court has made some key and often close 5-4 decisions. These include the reversal of the handgun ban in Washington, outlawing the death penalty for child rapists... and upholding the rights of detainees at Guantanamo Bay to appeal in U-S courts.

All of this serves as a reminder that the next president – be it Barack Obama or John McCain – could have a significant role to play in the make-up of the court perhaps for decades to come.

The Boston Globe reports that legal analysts say the court will likely have at least one vacancy in the next administration, and it could well be more than that.

The oldest justice is 88 and two others are in their 70s. And since the court is now split between 4 liberal and 4 conservative members with Justice Anthony Kennedy often as the deciding vote – even one vacancy could mean a big change. One expert suggests McCain could have more influence to swing the court if he becomes president because two of the oldest justices – John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg – are part of the liberal bloc. Antonin Scalia is the only member of the conservative bloc who is older than 60.

Both Obama and McCain have attacked the other for the kind of justices they would appoint. But somehow despite the intensity of our politics, our Supreme Court has remained comprised of justices who are fair-minded and dedicated to upholding the law. Most of the time.

Here’s my question to you: How much will the future of the Supreme Court matter in your vote for president?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Karen from Nashville, Tennessee writes:
I'm probably in the minority here, but I'm an independent and this will be the deciding factor in my vote. If Sandra Day O'Connor had remained on the bench, I would feel freer to consider the many, many other issues.

Nick from Cary, North Carolina writes:
All I have to do is think of Clarence Thomas, who will likely be a justice for the rest of my lifetime, to know this answer is yes, yes and yes!

P. from New Mexico writes:
It isn't very high on my list of "things to worry about". That list is topped with the economy, the neighbor’s son in Iraq, and the probability that the drug-related violence south of me will soon be moving north.

Larry from Ohio writes:
Jack, You bet it will make a difference. After my second amendment rights were barely upheld in a recent decision, I'm going to have to hold my nose and vote for McCain!

Donald from Hilton Head, South Carolina writes:
Supreme Court appointments are the singular reason that prevents my wife and me from even considering voting for McCain. He has committed himself to the ultra-right wing, and his appointments would be a huge set-back to women's rights.

Dayton from Columbia, Maryland writes:
A lot. It seems that the Supreme Court is the branch that has most control over some of these divisive issues (e.g. abortion, gun control, and the death penalty). These are the issues that divide America. They represent our principles as a nation and show our growth as civilized beings.

Mike from Ohio writes:
None. It’s the economy stupid!

Filed under: 2008 Election • Supreme Court
soundoff (220 Responses)
  1. Tony - Brownsville Texas

    I already know who I am voting for no matter what. There is absolutely nothing the GOP can say or do to change my mind.

    June 27, 2008 at 12:51 pm |
  2. Michelle

    I am woman. Of course it matters to me.

    June 27, 2008 at 12:56 pm |
  3. don in naples, florida

    The supreme court really is fare. I am not too concerned with the partisan-ness of that group. I mean as conservative as it has gotten abortion still hasn't been overturned. Although, i think our government sees a time in the future when we may have to impose restrictions on population growth– meaning one child per family, or something to that effect. Or perhaps it is hard to overturn abortion when a pro lifer like G.W. Bush supports guns, war, and capital punishment, positions that are not really pro life. As cynical as this response sounds, I am a conservative and do care about this country, I really don't want to see it destroyed by a bunch of greedy self serving politicians who only care about themselves or advancing some elitist agenda. So I don't really care if Mccain or Obama takes office, my decision will be based solely on which candidate is the most conservative with government spending, and economic issues here in this country.

    June 27, 2008 at 1:02 pm |
  4. John St. Louis Mo

    It will matter as I believe the court has become more interested in protecting people who would harm our contry than in making us safe through protecting the law. I have seen the Supreme Court take away rights to privacy and give murderers and criminals guns so that I must lock myself in my house. Protect the criminal before insuring the rights of victims. Yes my vote will be to protect privacy rights and protecting Americans before those who would harm us.

    June 27, 2008 at 1:04 pm |
  5. Wendy, Monroe, CT

    The supreme court is one out of three branches of our government. Despite what the Bush administration seems to think, the president does not make the laws, enforce the laws or pass judgment about the laws. Of course the supreme court is important. We need to bring it back to its' status as a check and balance to the other two branches. If the past 7 and a half years have reminded us of anything, it should be that.

    June 27, 2008 at 1:04 pm |
  6. Emma, San Jose, CA

    I remain firm in my choice for President. None of us will be able to pick a president who will totally please us. That is not possible in a Democracy.
    The candidate who presents himself as a consensus builder (Obama)
    gets my vote, rather than a man who comes off as having all the right answers for all of us, without asking us what is good for us (McCain).

    June 27, 2008 at 1:05 pm |
  7. Karen in Maryland

    The last 8 years have shown that the Republicans have worked very hard to influence the Supreme court decisions by their appointees and the and the now criminalized selection process of attorneys. Dems cannot afford to sit back and allow the Republicans to select Justices that erode our civil liberties and weaken the constitution

    June 27, 2008 at 1:09 pm |
  8. Jim Bailey, Cripple Creek CO

    The appointment of members of the SCOTUS is always on my mind when voting for President.
    Bu$h has used the Court to help destroy my country, it's my hope that Obama can save things.

    June 27, 2008 at 1:13 pm |
  9. Willow, from Iowa

    I guess the Supreme Court does figure in my reasons to vote for Obama. I am a realist, and I am more pro-life than pro-choice. I guess you could say I am "pro-responsibility". But with the economy, the Iraq war, $4 gasoline, no health care for millions of Americans, the person who I believe will be the best for this country is B. Obama. We need to spend many billions of dollars on alternative energies, cellulose ethanol, wind power, even nuclear power. We need to take care of everyone in this country, not just the rich.

    June 27, 2008 at 1:15 pm |
  10. Tina (Fort Worth)

    I am more worried about how the current president is doing to kill the last little breath of fresh air I am allowed to breath. My mind is made up and surely the next president cannot pick as bad as this last one did.

    June 27, 2008 at 1:27 pm |
  11. Floyd in SC

    It already does! While I would like to see God and prayer put back into schools and government and parental rights put back into families they would not be worth a return to the 18th century in regards to some of the rest of the rights if there was a more conservative court.

    We would certainly see the reversal of Roe vs Wade, might see the return of the Southern Chain Gang, whipping post, and public executions, as well as an even greater freedom in the restrictions regarding gun control.

    I feel that after yesterday's gun ruling that the government should pass a law that ALL guns must be licensed and registered with stiff prison terms for possession of an unregistered gun.

    June 27, 2008 at 1:28 pm |
  12. Jay in Houston

    Regardless of who the President appoints, the Supreme Court will shift to reflect the views of American society, which are right down the middle. Bush tried to alter the balance by appointing two staunch conservatives, but Justice Kennedy responded by moving from a conservative to being the swing vote left vacant by O'Connor. Result – the court remains as tight as it ever was.

    June 27, 2008 at 1:40 pm |
  13. Greg, Hamilton Ontario

    Jack, your supreme court is your last line of defence against big brother. I don't think with all the issues on the list, that Americans want to add the Supreme Court to their considerations. Look at the fun they had with Hillary and Mr. Obama. Throw the court in there and eyes will start to bleed.

    June 27, 2008 at 1:41 pm |
  14. IFEANYI AZUBIKE Houston, Texas

    No. Who in their right minds care about what those old people do, when we have an economy that is in severe recession. I, like many Americans see the supreme Court for what it is- Another retirement home which will only matter to very few. The Important issues will remain the economy, Iraq and the Bush legacy. The Supreme Court and other old peoples homes will occupy a backseat.

    June 27, 2008 at 1:42 pm |
  15. Greg ...Cabot AR

    The future of the Supreme Court is a very important deciding factor for me in this election.

    Obama has expressed a desire to nominate QUALIFIED people to that positon and McCaine has pleged to nominate CONSERVATIVE people.

    I don't want someone getting a seat on the Supreme Court that already has an agenda, I want someone that is willing to look at the law, thumb their nose at political pressure and make the right decision....period.

    June 27, 2008 at 1:45 pm |
  16. Jan Davis, Knoxville, TN

    Most definitely Jack. Those right-wing justices scare me! We certainly don't need any more of them on the Supreme Court. If McCain is elected, we will see the likes of those who support the right-wing views of Pastor Hagee, James Dobson, and the Fox News crew.

    On the other hand, Barack will put good people on the Court, people who are dedicated to the Constitution and the rights of the people. I hope the next Supreme Court overturns the decision on guns. We need stronger gun control rather than go in the direction the Court went this week.

    Have a great weekend, Jack!

    June 27, 2008 at 1:45 pm |
  17. Peter TX

    lets seee, heck yes!

    Peter, tx

    June 27, 2008 at 1:49 pm |
  18. Ed Reed

    It's always been important and, if Congress is not going to fulfill its function as a check on Prseidential power, it will become even more important.

    Ed Reed
    Port Aransas

    June 27, 2008 at 1:50 pm |
  19. Tom C, Stuart, Fl

    Leave America, move to Quebec, go anywhere but here.

    Tom C in Florida

    June 27, 2008 at 1:51 pm |
  20. Tom C, Stuart, Fl

    Yes, we need a Supreme Court that want give us a moron for our President.

    Tom C.,in Florida

    June 27, 2008 at 1:53 pm |
  21. Scott - Wichita, Kansas

    Only if they decide to fill it with Clowns and Mimes.

    June 27, 2008 at 1:54 pm |
  22. Ron from Colorado

    Future appointments to the Supreme Court is a major consideration in determining my vote for president along with others issues. As we saw in the first election of G.W. Bush, the Supreme Court can set the rules and decide a close election. Interpretation of the law and of The Constitution is at stake in such matters as gun control or what constitutes torture. Appointments once made are for a lifetime or until retirement. Therefore, we need to get it right the first time as there is little chance of removing a justice who does not represent The Constitution and The Will of The People accurately.

    June 27, 2008 at 1:54 pm |
  23. Mark - Asheville, NC

    The time to worry about this matter was in 2000 and 2004. We could have had an electable nominee in 2004 and now we would not have Roberts and Alito on the bench, and we would also not have the bleak choice between McCain and Obama. But the DNC wasn't concerned about the SCOTUS in 2004, and apparently they are not now as well.

    So here we are: we must choose between the prospect of more rightwing justices with McCain; or voting for an utterly unqualified nominee who was selected years ago by the DNC, and about whom we really know very little.

    How will it affect my vote? It's only one more variable in an equation that I don't even want to solve. I do not want either of them.

    June 27, 2008 at 1:55 pm |
  24. Jed in Redding, CA

    The last few decisions have solidified in my mind the true importance a president has when it comes to choosing supreme court justices. With Scalia acting as the self appointed Chief Justice and the moderate sensibility of Sandra Day O'Conner replaced by the blind conservative loyalty of Samuel Alito the SCOTUS has taken a hard right interpretation of the Constitution. With John Paul Stevens pushing 90 and three other justices in their 70's, it is entirely possible the next president will be able, over the next eight years, to alter the vision of the SCOTUS for decades to come.

    This is one of the biggest sticking points I have with people who voted for Hillary in the primary but are pushing for John McCain in Novemeber. John McCain may very well appoint moderate conservatives like himself but we cannot take that chance. Lest ye forget, John McCain is anti-abortion and pro-war. Only Barack Obama can be guaranteed to place left leaning moderates on the Supreme Court when the opportunity arises.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:03 pm |
  25. Differ in MD

    Democrats will win this election and the Supreme Court will again gain some balance on many key issues like gun control and the death penalty when new justices are nominated. The child rape decision is appalling!

    June 27, 2008 at 2:03 pm |
  26. Jayne in NH

    Absolutely. The Supreme Court is a major concern in the next election. John McCain has flip flopped and is now anti-abortion, even in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. The last thing I want is for him to have an opportunity to appoint judges to the Supreme Court.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:06 pm |
  27. Nick - Cary, North Carolina

    All I have to do is think of Clarence Thomas, who will likely be a justice for the rest of my lifetiime, to know this answer is yes, Yes and YES!

    June 27, 2008 at 2:07 pm |
  28. Independent in New Mexico

    It isn't very high on my list of "things to worry about". That list is topped with the economy, the neighbors' son in Iraq , and the probability that the drug related violence south of me will soon be moving north. Upon reflection, I would suggest "apolitical" canidates such as Sandra Day O'Conner, who seemed to do a reasonable job of avoiding the extreams of politics and voted her judgement, not her political emotions.... New Mexico , just north of the on going shoot outs....

    June 27, 2008 at 2:08 pm |
  29. Terry, Chandler AZ

    THe main reason I will NOT vote for McCain is because of the ultra-right wing judges he will nominate. Obama on the other hand will appoint judges that support the Constitution.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:09 pm |
  30. scott, lithonia, georgia

    If Uncle Tom, who has never written anything, is no longer on the court.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:11 pm |
  31. Michael Lorton, Virgina

    It want effect my decision on who to vote for President. I'm more concern about the presidental election than who is going to get appointed to the Supreme Court.......that will effect all of us directly. And what is with this word "prez?" Sound like we are voting for that little candy dispenser "PEZ"...of course that may not be a bad thing.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:12 pm |
  32. Rex in Portland, Ore.

    The most disappointing clause in our Constitution is the one which allows Supreme Court Justices to be hack political appointees. This is a major flaw and should be remedied soon with a new constitutional convention. Of course appointees will affect my life – yours, too. Now we have schmucks who can't even read the 2nd amendment, let alone interpret it intelligently. It will get worse, and one of these days a catastrophic court will be attained, and everything we know and love will be at the mercy of politcal hack appointees.

    Find a better system, Jack.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:14 pm |
  33. David, Orlando, FL

    It is probably the single most important factor – more so than the war and the economy. I know that McSame will have and take the opportunity to turn the Supreme Clowns into a solid, arch conservative right wing voting block that will preclude any possibility of our rights to privacy and every other freedom. This will preclude any possibility of my great grandchildren from knowing the freedoms I used to enjoy only 8 years ago. At best, Obama can only hang on to a right heavy set of clowns we have now. Then it will take a succession of Democratic Presidents to slowly swing the court back to center. Currently it is definitely not at all what our Founding Fathers had intended.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:14 pm |
  34. Betty - AL

    Yep – we've managed to gain a little ground in the last 60 or 80 years. I don't want the GOP (gas-oil party) to take away MY rights.


    June 27, 2008 at 2:15 pm |
  35. Kristen- Philadelphia, PA

    No, I have known who I was voting for ever since Obama announced his candidacy. Since he has won the nomination I will still be voting for him in November.

    Yes the Supreme Court is a factor but I think there are more important issues affecting folks than Supreme Court judges.

    If people were awake the past year they would know who they were voting for also. It’s not that hard to find out where a candidate stands on any issue. I wish folks would stop waiting to be spoon fed candidates stances on issues and go find out for themselves.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:16 pm |
  36. Bill,Quarryville. PA

    The last two presidential elections it was a big concern to me, because we had a president who was picking judges based on his religious beliefs. The people that we have running for president today I think will take more into account before making their decision.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:17 pm |
  37. sarah, indiana

    absolutely, jack, the supreme court is the last great defense of our constitution. we need judges that will adhere to a strict interpretation of the constitution, not ones who will try to push a left wing liberal agenda. that said i also think we need a congress who does its constitutional duty and acts as a "check" for the president. we also need a president who does not trample the constitution to death in order to advance his own agenda or that of his party. maybe we will get lucky and the supreme court will strike down political parties as unconstitutional.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:17 pm |
  38. Rocky from Chicopee, Ma

    It will affect it greatly. Whoever prommisses to appoint Mario Cuomo Cheif Justice gets my vote. Or at least Lou Dobbs.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:18 pm |
  39. Terry in Hanover County

    Nothing would make me happier than to see Obama appointment two people to the Supreme Court: Hillary Clinton and Doug Wilder, former Governor of Virginia. It'd be worth the price of admission to see Scalia's head spin with those two by his side not to mention the fact that those two would restore balance to the Court.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:18 pm |
  40. Ron

    Hi Jack:

    I doubt it will have an effect. There are still many state gun control laws. The issue is with the people, not the law. The second amendment gaurantees the right to bear arms. The only reason that was changed was because many people acted irresponsibly with weapons.

    I look at it this way. If I lived in an area where I thought I needed a gun under my pillow to protect myself. I would consider relocating to an area with a lower crime rate.

    Ron San Diego

    June 27, 2008 at 2:19 pm |
  41. Sue of Minnesota

    Yes, the courts are very important to our country. They are the third part of our government. They are to oversee the exective government, not be the government' yes man, or woman. They are not elected, but appointed by the president. They are to represent all the people not just the ruling party.

    Look what the court did to us in 2000. We got Bushed.

    The amercian people voted in Al Gore, but the courts overruled us. Bush' a brother was the Governor of Florida, the disputed state. That should have been a conflict of interest. They should have went with the people when in doubt.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:20 pm |
  42. Elesha, Concord, NC

    It matters to me quite a bit. Long after a President leaves office, his Justice's remain – for life! More than any policy decision, a President leaves his LASTING legacy through those he chooses to appoint to the bench. We have far too much going on right now to take the appointment of judges for granted. Far too much.

    A President with a respect for and understanding of the law is preferred to one who tramples the law as though it were his right to do so. Sorry about that! Excuse me! Were those your rights I just trampled over? Although Obama is not 100% my candidate, YET, he has my vote. He will represent my interests far better than McCain.

    This issue along with others is why, as far as I am concerned, January 2009 can not get here fast enough!

    June 27, 2008 at 2:20 pm |
  43. Darlene - PA

    Yes, to the extent that they usually last about 20-30 yrs and we can't afford to let the conservative right wing guiding our country and making ultra right decisions.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:20 pm |
  44. Karen an Independent from Pennsylvania

    I always consider the Supreme Court possibilty when I cast my vote.
    McCain could do some long lasting damage. Not for 100 years, but at least my lifetime.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:20 pm |
  45. JT in NYC

    I just hope the Supreme Court doesn't do the voting for me. After their performance in the 2000 election, Scalia's proclamation of a "dead constitution," Thomas having gone mute, and George Bush telling us that Harriet Meyers would make an "excellent Supreme Court Justice," I certainly hope everyone takes this question seriously when voting.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:20 pm |
  46. Ernie Hinds from Maryland

    I don't think that I would ever vote for somebody who would overturn Roe V. Wade, plain and simple. At the Same token though I would not want a justice that thinks that banning guns is a good idea. I think that more middle ground justices are needed to keep the courts balanced. Someone in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor or someone that is more moderate. It is not the biggest issue in this campaign to me but it is certainly important not to put another Scalia or Thomas on the bench.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:21 pm |
  47. Josh in Sylvania, Ohio

    Yes, We need more left-leaning moderates to undo what the right wing fanatics have done to this country. This is a wake up call to the country and prevent John McCain from becoming President. Obama in 08.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:22 pm |
  48. Jonathan, Hartford, CT

    Of course. I never want to see the courts packed with ultr-conservatives, again. We need wise people in the Supreme Court who have a knowledge of and reverence for law. We need justices who who love the Constitution more than their religious beliefs or the political leanings of the president who nominated them. I would like to see justices appointed who care about the rights of individuals as well as the nation, as a whole. That's a tall order, but I am forever the optimist. We have to be optimistic living in this new America.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:25 pm |
  49. Linda in Virginia

    So many problems and my thought are the courts are not the highest on the agenda. Our country is in trouble. Jobs, the war, and energy, food, health insurance, the list is long, Jack.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:27 pm |
  50. Esther from over the rainbow

    it should be everyones main concern
    we will win or loses rights depending on who sits there.
    we do not need the balance to be tipped in either way right now keep it balanced like it is now

    June 27, 2008 at 2:27 pm |
  51. Mike, Syracuse NY

    Jack, the liberal justices in the last few weeks have backed terrorists and child rapists. They almost succeeded in overturning the Second Amendment. Those are the types of justices Obama will appoint. No thanks.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:29 pm |
  52. Larry from Georgetown, Texas

    Nope, they don't have anything to do with jobs, gas prices, illegal immigration, or our future. Ooops, if forgot about Florida in 2000.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:29 pm |
  53. Jerry -Roselle, Illinois

    Lets see here, Supreme Court wants everyone to have a gun
    in there house.Hmmmmm
    Supreme Court says no to the death penatly for raping little
    children. Hmmmmm
    Sounds like the Rupblican Party out of control.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:30 pm |
  54. Stacy from Farifax, Virginia

    It is always a consideration. This week's vote overturning the DC gun ban confirms the right of individuals to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment. It proves that the President's choices for Supreme Court Justice holds tremendous power over legal interpretations of our constitution. In this case it shows that the court has moved decidedly to the right. Sandra Day O'Connor – we and our constitution miss you.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:30 pm |
  55. RIGHTon in MN

    I have seventy seven reflective points that I consider when casting my vote for this years President. The Supreme Courts appointments by this new President is the 6th most in importance of the 77.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:30 pm |
  56. Fox in Florida

    A President can only make a suggestion on who sits on the bench of the Supreme Court. From there it is up to congress to approve that person. No, that won't be part of my criteria for choosing who I vote for to be President. But it will be part of how I vote for my states representatives in congress. Obama will be the best President for this generation but its up to us to make sure we put the best people in congress to assure a fair system of checks and balances.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:31 pm |
  57. Ray Kinserlow


    June 27, 2008 at 2:31 pm |
  58. Katiec Pekin, IL

    The Supreme Court is very important. They make decisions that
    effect all our lives. That is why it is so important for Barack to be
    our president as we cannot afford additional ultra conservatives
    making decisions that many of us do not agree with. Their
    personal beliefs are not supposed to influence their decisions,
    but they do. A judge put into place by the Democratic Party will
    help even out the injustice of the justice being pushed on

    June 27, 2008 at 2:31 pm |
  59. Pauhana

    You bet the Court is important. Can you say, "pack the court" with liberals.

    Columbia, MD

    June 27, 2008 at 2:33 pm |
  60. Cynthia

    No it won't affect my vote becausde I'm with Senator Obama all the way. With many of the justices being up in age and retiring, etc. we need to put some on there who are more aligned with what we believe in.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  61. Chuck in MO

    This country and its government are broken and not far from
    beyond repair. The courts can't fix that. While I was pleased with the
    ruling this week about the 2nd amendment as I am a gun owner/collector, hunter and shooter, I voted for my last republican in
    2000 based on this wedge or any other wedge issue. Maybe Obama
    and the Democrat congress can't fix it, but I know the republicans can't
    and won't.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:38 pm |
  62. Preston of Denver, CO

    I'd rather have someone in office who will appoint Supreme Court members based on their qualifications and fairness as opposed to any personal dispositions or religious inclinations they might hold. Since we have to put up with Justices as a lifetime appointment, it should be a major (but not the only) concern for people casting their vote.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:38 pm |
  63. Billy G in Las Vegas

    it's one of the top three reasons I will vote for Obama because it only takes ONE MORE right wing NUT like Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito to turn the United States of America into a Fascist Dictatorship!!!

    June 27, 2008 at 2:38 pm |
  64. Terry from North Carolina

    Does not make any difference to me. Unfortunately a most important group of people appointed by the President and approved by Congress are getting old and one has to wonder how effective can they be as they become older.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  65. Paulette Dallas,PA

    Yes. I don't want to see Roe vs Wade reversed and I don't want to see antiquated conservative judges appointed. Let's get some new blood in there that are will to do the right thing rather than political favors for the party who appointed them.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  66. Dayton from Columbia, Maryland

    A lot. It seems that the supreme court is the branch that has most control over some of these divisive issues (e.g. abortion, gun control, and the death penalty). These are the issues that divide America. They represent our principles as a nation and show our growth as civilized beings.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  67. Russ, Seattle

    As a nation of laws it is highly important that the justices be impartial. Sadly this pull to the right or left has eroded confidence enough that people should be concerned. Five to four decisions split down ideological lines shows that bias exists in the court. Because of the existing climate I consider this factor in my decision.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  68. Larry, Ohio

    Jack,you bet it will make a difference,after my second amend rights were barely upheld in a recent decision,I'm going to have to hold my nose and vote for McCain!

    June 27, 2008 at 2:41 pm |
  69. Don Ferguson

    Supreme Court appointments – the singular reason that prevents my wife and I from even considering voting for McCain. He has committed himself to the ultra-right wing, and his appointments would be a huge set-back to women's rights.

    Donald in Hilton Head, SC

    June 27, 2008 at 2:42 pm |
  70. C. Farrell, Houston, Tx

    Knowing and understanding constitution law I believe is important in a presidential selection. If one doesn't know or understand the law of the land the Constitution is going to sliced and diced as we've seen done under the Bush/Cheney administration.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:42 pm |
  71. Glen in Laurel, MD

    Oops, my Gates comment was obviously meant for the Gates article. Sorry about that.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:43 pm |
  72. Les Young Oklahoma

    The Supreme Court is as unbalanced as our economy one of the reason our economy is in the shape it in is the unbalance. This is what's going to happen to the court. I don't want all so called liberals on the court . We need a balance.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:43 pm |
  73. Wendy. San Rafael, CA

    Because it affects almost everything that goes on in this country, my vote will be, as it was in 2000, for the Supreme Court. I didn't win that time but will never give up.

    As a person who became a citizen for the sole reason to have the ability to vote, my vote will always be made cognizant of the impact the Supreme Court has on my life.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:43 pm |
  74. Jim

    It's not my vote that I am worried about, it's those gun toting neocons and their manic fear of being seperated from their guns that concern me. The sad fact is that the corporate loving, civil rights hating, gun worshipors already control the Supreme Court and will for the foreseeable future so why should we worry about our votes now? Bush and his Republican predecessors have stacked the court in favor of their benefactors and it will take a generation or more to repair the damage they have done to the constitution. Jim, Mariposa, California

    June 27, 2008 at 2:44 pm |
  75. Sophia

    Future appointments to the Supreme Court are very much a factor in making my choice for President. The moderate members of the court are quite old. The next President will be making several new appointments in the near future

    If McCain is elected the Court will become dominated by right wing Justices who will cater to big business and who will disregard the rights of the individual.

    Roe v Wade will effectively be overturned.

    Louisville, Ky

    June 27, 2008 at 2:44 pm |
  76. Larry, Ohio

    Jack,you bet it will affect my vote,after my second amendment rights were barely upheld in a recent decision,I'm going to have to hold my nose,and vote for McCain!

    June 27, 2008 at 2:44 pm |
  77. Sid in Texas

    I hope that the next president will put these folks in the Smithsonian, where they should be, and appoint some that are inline with today's world.
    And please , don't appoint them for lifetime jobs.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:49 pm |
  78. Joe in DE

    It will have a sustanilal impact. One of the 3 or 4 major considrations.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:50 pm |
  79. Jason


    If we have to consider who may or may not be nominated to the Supreme Court before we elect the next president, then I'm not voting anymore. We need to focus on who the BEST candidate for the job of President of the United States is. Not by what kind of chewing gum they like or if they'll veto beer. I am sure the Republicans are itching to see who Obama nominates for the bench (if Obama is the next prez). Alito , Roberts and Scalia are tearing down our liberties 1 by 1 and changing America with their decisions, I wish the would keep their personal politics out of the court!!

    Chandler, Arizona

    June 27, 2008 at 2:51 pm |
  80. Marie

    It should affect everyone's vote as a right wing dominated bench will just keep the U.S. back in the 19th century on a host of issues like the right to choose and gay marriage. The U.S. needs to put itself on equal footing with the more progressive and modern societies in the world.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:52 pm |
  81. Jan Patoka Illinois

    With a war raging, Gas prices ,Groceries, No jobs, America being sold to the highest bidder, Crooked politicians, No border security. I could care less about ROE VS WADE, GAY RIGHTS or any thing else that's none of my business. We have witnessed where the MORAL election that we had last time got us. BUSH. PASS THE TYLENOL!!!

    June 27, 2008 at 2:52 pm |
  82. David from Maryland

    Absolutly. I think that this is one of the most important, although little understood, reasons to get the Republicans out of the White House. If McBush were to get elected, he could change the balance of the court to the point where we wouldn't recognize our Constitution. From gay rights and abortion to legalizing torture and assult weapons, the Court will reflect everything bad in our society.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:53 pm |
  83. evan hughes

    The Supreme Court's primary role is to uphold the United States Constitution. The Constitution being a document which establishes the select roles of government and provides limitations to that governments powers. I will be looking for a candidate which will establish judges to the bench who are willing to uphold those limitations upon governments power. As it stands John McCain appears to be the candidate leaning towards that stance.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:54 pm |
  84. Susan from Scotts Valley, CA

    Absolutely! While a woman's right to choose may not be the only issue or even in the top five issues for women these days, it still HAS to be considered. We can't turn back this clock and McCain has vowed to do it.

    The most ridiculous thing I've heard in the last two days was the woman from Just Say No Deal say on Larry King last night that she and 3 million other Hillary supporters were voting for McCain because they couldn't reward the Democratic party. Talk about turning back the clock. That's why there are some men out there that still don't respect women for their intelligence–because of ridiculous comments like that.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:55 pm |
  85. Jay in Texas

    Not much. Not because the appointments to the Supreme Court will not be one of the most important responsibilities of the next president – they will – but because, first of all, my state will be giving all its electoral votes to McCain who would continue stacking the Court with fascist judges. Secondly, even if Obama could win in Texas, his positions regarding issues coming before the Court in recent days are no different from McCain's. I will be casting a protest vote for Ralph Nader with a clean conscience.
    Brownwood, Texas

    June 27, 2008 at 2:58 pm |
  86. Not fooled

    You betcha it matters – as a woman and as an American. The country needs to remain progressive not regress, I still respect the constitution, yes, it does matter more so now than ever before in my lifetime.

    June 27, 2008 at 2:59 pm |
  87. Ed North Carolina

    Oh just one or two more marks on the positive side for Obama on my Presidential check sheet. For years we head the so called conservatives rant about "activist "liberal judge. Now that they are close to having a majority of "activist" neo-conservative judges who agree with them all is right with the world. I wish there was some way to leave politics out of the selection process for Supreme Court justices and just base appointment on their qualities as legal scholars.

    June 27, 2008 at 3:00 pm |
  88. Tom in Desoto Texas

    The court is already to the right, with a few more republican appointments the court will have 18th century thinking in it's sights with full steam ahead. It would be as though the country is in a time machine.

    June 27, 2008 at 3:02 pm |
  89. Brian - Trinidad

    I'd vote for the president who abolishes the supreme court.We have all the laws we need.We need judges that enforce the laws.The supreme court allows loopholes that hurt society.For Example,because of the supreme court we have kiddie porn on the internet,drugs on every street corner and now guns in the hands of everyone in DC.You know what?The supreme court should be forced to be exposed to the things that they allow society to be exposed to.i.e.The security for visitors to the supreme court building should allow everyone with handguns to enter the building unchecked.You'll quickly see a different supreme court.

    June 27, 2008 at 3:02 pm |
  90. Bob In Baltimore

    Not really Jack,

    They are so politically aligned that it won't matter. As Justice Scalia so aptly put it......GET OVER IT! He just left off the "I'm right and You're wrong nanny nanny boo boo" insult.

    The Bush court will ensure the tyranny and damage to the US will live on for generations.

    June 27, 2008 at 3:02 pm |
  91. Squier

    This question has never came to mind, but now that you bring it up, the future of the country, and therefore, of the Supreme Court, is very important in regards for whom I would vote. I want the Constitution to remain robust and to be defended, but with Bush in power, it has not been. I would never vote for ANY Republicans, even if they were gay, wore bell-bottoms, and had flowers and anti-war buttons on their shirts.

    June 27, 2008 at 3:05 pm |
  92. Karen (Nashville)

    I'm probably in the minority here, but I'm an independant and this will be the deciding factor in my vote. If Sandra Day O'Connor had remained on the bench I would feel freer to consider the many, many other issues.

    June 27, 2008 at 3:06 pm |
  93. Susan, Fraser MI

    Heck ya, it matters! McCain's promise to pick only the most conservative judges is just one of many reasons not to vote for him!

    June 27, 2008 at 3:07 pm |
  94. Katherine

    yup, and if Obama is smart, he'd promise to appoint Clinton

    June 27, 2008 at 3:08 pm |
  95. Cliff Dick

    Of course, it is one of many issues

    June 27, 2008 at 3:09 pm |
  96. Bob, Frankfort, Kentucky

    Asking how much the future of the Supreme Court matters in my vote for president is like asking how much all who died over the past couple of centuries mattered in preserving my right to cast that vote. You tell me how much it matters if we elect a president who would trade the Constitution that so many died to protect for a few votes to get elected.

    June 27, 2008 at 3:10 pm |
  97. sandy in Ohio

    Jack, I wish I could be high minded and say yes but things like the war, lack of health care and the rising cost of everything from fuel to food come first. If McCain gets elected, the things I just mentioned will drive the Supreme Court off of eveyone's list.

    June 27, 2008 at 3:10 pm |
  98. Mike, Ohio

    NONE, It’s the Economy Stupid!

    June 27, 2008 at 3:15 pm |
  99. Patrick Henry

    It is unlikely. No matter who the members of the Supreme court are...the constitution is the defining argument...if it ain't there-it ain't there.

    No matter what the ideology of the justices–the document is unchanged.

    If by some chance a dumb decision is made–we'll make do.

    In my opinion–the ideology argument for Supreme Court justices is a joke. We should be nominating and selecting judges–who don't really care.

    June 27, 2008 at 3:16 pm |
  100. km from Iowa

    The Republican party has turned into a religious right mouth piece. If McCain gets elected, he will appoint social conservatives that will help define important issues like who can marry, who gets to decide what a woman can do with her own body, and whether we have to be teaching religious beliefs in school, right along side of the scientific views. Do we really want the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity weighing in on laws that rule our lives? I know I don't.

    June 27, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
  101. Harry

    I am VERY interested in the Supreme Court protecting my rights as a citizen. Therefore I am very interested in the "shaping" of the court, by the next administration.

    However, I am more worried about the "shape" of the country, regarding the next administration.


    June 27, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
  102. Paul, Columbia, SC

    The court does not concern me. The lack of good presidential candidates and abysmal representation does. Getting these last concerns repaired will automatically take care of the court selections.

    June 27, 2008 at 3:21 pm |
  103. Jerry,OK

    The nine judges setting on the Supreme Court are suppose to be non-political, however; the (2000) election says different. So... you bet, the Court has my attention, especially when voting.

    Jerry N/Tulsa

    June 27, 2008 at 3:21 pm |
  104. Sam, North Carolina

    For most people, I would say it is pretty much inextricably linked...if your values are conservative, you will vote for the conservative candidate who will put in conservative judges. If you lean left, then you will most likely vote for the liberal candidate who will nominate liberal judges.

    For the people who are on the fence because of economic issues or the war (depending on what is important you could vote for either candidate), then the judge issue may become more important to them in helping them determine how they will vote.

    So yes, it is an important factor to be considered.

    June 27, 2008 at 3:22 pm |
  105. wally Ruehmann las Vegas nv

    iam more concerned about the cost of food, there's nothing i can do about the court they have always been against me. iam only 1 man ,jack.

    June 27, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
  106. Ruie - Michigan

    Dear Jack:

    Absolutely!!! We cannot afford another arrogant idiot like Scalia.

    June 27, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
  107. Victor in Saanich, B.C. Canada

    Jack, the obvious lack of sanity coming from the Supreme 'CIRCUS', re. guns and child rape, should weigh on your votes!! The future sadly may be more of the same!!

    June 27, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
  108. Rob In DET

    I would like to see the court more center. instead of liberal or conservative more Independant.

    June 27, 2008 at 3:29 pm |
  109. WW (TX)

    Very important. If McCain get to appoint two or more people to the Supreme Court this country will be more of a dictatorship than any thing else.

    June 27, 2008 at 3:29 pm |
  110. Linda Richards

    It will be significant. The Supremes have slashed Exxon's punitive damages for one of the biggest environmental disaster of our time. They have handed Bush the Presidency. Worse, when they make decisions about issues like Gitmo, the President complains and slick lawyers come back at them from a different angle in an attempt to water down the decision. Perhaps a lifetime is too long for anyone to rule anything. We don't need iron-poor blood making important decisions which can almost literally bring us down or divide us as a country. I'll vote for new blood. Linda in NJ.

    June 27, 2008 at 3:30 pm |
  111. Mike Nunn - Hot Springs, Ar.

    The future of the Supreme Court is the single most important reason I will be voting for Obama.

    June 27, 2008 at 3:31 pm |
  112. Dave, Brooklyn, NY

    Jack, you and I will never live to see balance in the Supreme Court. It is staffed by a majority of young conservatives and a minority of normal people. Even if McBush is not appointed president, all we can hope for in our lifetimes is the status quo. I am concerned for my heirs for the next couple of generations.

    June 27, 2008 at 3:32 pm |
  113. Teri in FL

    Yes it is VERY important. Bush's latest picks prove it, don't they?
    Palm Coast, FL

    June 27, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  114. Karen-Phoenix

    Yes, yes, yes!!!! Obama all the way!!! I'm a 64 year old women and I do not want to see this country go back to what it was when I grew up. Women need to only look at what they DID NOT HAVE or have a chance at before and that is the future with McCain!!! GO OBAMA for my grandchildren and the future of this country!!!!

    June 27, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
  115. Dori in AZ

    Just one more thing I don't have any control over, Jack! So, no, my vote doesn't ride on it. Does yours?

    June 27, 2008 at 3:38 pm |
  116. Peggy, St. Louis

    There are only two things that would make me cast my vote for Barack Obama: the future of the Supreme Court and his choosing Hillary Clinton as his running mate!! The next President will determine the future of the Court and its decisions for years to come!

    June 27, 2008 at 3:39 pm |
  117. BJ Smith

    It should be very scary so many do not know how very important the Supreme Court is.

    BJ in Seminole, FL

    June 27, 2008 at 3:39 pm |
  118. Roger (Dallas, TX)

    Jack, one of the paramount reasons I'm voting for Sen. Obama is that if Sen. McCain is elected and is allowed to appoint even one Supreme Court Justice, I fear for the rights and privileges we hold dear as Americans. The court has and is becoming far too conservative. Women across this country, if they are considering voting for McCain, need to take a moment and think about what they are doing and the impact it could have on their lives should this man become President. While Senator Obama certainly will not have the answers to all the nation's problems, I am confident in the belief that his appointments to the court will ensure that a woman's right to choose will remain intact.

    June 27, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  119. Chris in Minnesota

    The Supreme Court doesn't really factor into my decision because this body is for now just functioning as a group that tackles some of the greatest wedge issues of our time. In my decision for President, I am looking for someone who can put aside all of the wedge issues like abortion, gun rights, and the death penalty, and tackle the problems that affect us all like health care, gas prices, and social security. So I wouldn't care who either candidate would nominate to the Supreme Court as long as whoever they decide to pick, doesn't become the source and focus of our next greatest wedge issue.

    June 27, 2008 at 3:42 pm |
  120. Darren S.

    You can throw a woman's right to her own body away if McCain gets elected. Bye bye Row v. Wade.

    June 27, 2008 at 3:44 pm |
  121. Marina in North Carolina

    Supreme Court appointments are very important because a hyperpartisan wacko in a black robe can have a very long term effect on our country. The extreme right wing likes to think that they are not legislating from the bench – simply that they are "correctly" interpreting the Constitution, but it's an amazing thing how they always seem to interpret in a manner that is highly favorable to their partisan views.

    Yes, the possible future appointments to the Supreme Court are very important in my vote for President and Senate. I don't need any more nut jobs stripping away my privacy rights while expanding the privacy rights of every crackpot who wants to own a hand gun, machine gun, or missile. (That must be some big deer their "hunting"!)

    June 27, 2008 at 3:45 pm |
  122. Curtis, Oxnard, CA

    Imagine America with a Supreme Court that removes Roe vs. Wade, allows every citizen to carry a gun, denies any form of affirmative action and enforces mandatory teaching of Creationism.
    There are countries in the world where this is fact. Would you vote to live in any of them?

    June 27, 2008 at 3:48 pm |
  123. Ron from Minnesota

    Obama or Clinton??? how about Jack, Wolf or Lou Dobbs for president.Does it relly make a difference who gets in?

    June 27, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  124. Noah in Buffalo

    SCOTUS gave us Dred Scott how many americans died because of that verdict? John McCain thinks restoration of Habeous Corpus to Gitmo detainees is the worst decision "ever". Think about those two thoughts. Of course it matters, our country is the beacon of freedom and we must learn from our mistakes and move forward. John McCain wants to continue Bush's trek to the Past to them good old days. I want a country where no person is 3/5th of a white christian man and a court that will support the the law that truly reflects that all people are created equal.

    June 27, 2008 at 3:51 pm |
  125. A Kraft Naples, FL

    no....they are a pathetic bunch...an insult to our forefathers

    June 27, 2008 at 3:52 pm |
  126. David, Tampa, Fl

    Since I beleive the Supreme Court has been criminally negligent for the better part of 30 years, I would say yes. One of the most fundamental thing the Court is suposed to do is to protect we the people from harm so we can enjoy life, liberty and the persuit of Happiness, whereever she may run off to. These people have been falling down on the job and should be removed from the court for their decisions on many issues if possible, especially the last couple.

    June 27, 2008 at 3:52 pm |
  127. Deb

    Yep. The Supreme Court giveth & can taketh away. I'm glad they're leaving my guns alone (so far) for instance.

    June 27, 2008 at 3:54 pm |
  128. vern - anaheim ca

    jack ,i think it's very important that someone who is not a bush clone be elected,someone who will bring the .i also believe that a woman's right to choose court closer to the middle,not to the extreme right wing it is now, i also believe a woman's right to choose be kept but the conservative court would like to change that and so thats just one of many reasons i 'm voting for sen.obama.

    June 27, 2008 at 3:55 pm |
  129. Tom from Boston, Mass.

    Let's see. The Supreme Court looked the other way while the Bush administration trampled the constitution; they made the outrageous decision to overturn Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban to the delight of the NRA ;and they are also going to allow men to rape little children without fear of paying the ultimate penalty. Next up? Roe vs. Wade. Gee Jack, I can't imagine why anyone would care about the future composition of the Supreme Court, can you?

    June 27, 2008 at 3:58 pm |
  130. Dan, Maryland

    As dissapointing as this is, it will certainly play an impact. Why do we have conservative and liberal judges? Isn't the law non-partisan. Shouldn't the law be based not on personal beliefs but on the merits of the case? With Obama there's a chance to get back to that. With McCain's view of "I must overturn Roe V. Wade," we will not. Take the politics out of the court once and for all.

    June 27, 2008 at 3:59 pm |
  131. Allison / Dayton, Ohio

    No way will it determine how I feel about a potential presidential candidate. There are a number of issues that I look at when I determine who should sit in the oval office. Yes, the supreme court justice is maybe 10% of my thoughts but, there are more important issues that I look at as a whole. Case and point: your not going to agree with everything Barack Obama & John McCain has to say.

    June 27, 2008 at 3:59 pm |
  132. Dan, Maryland

    As dissapointing as this is, it will certainly play an impact. Why do we have conservative and liberal judges? Isn't the law non-partisan. Shouldn't the law be based not on personal beliefs but on the merits of the case? With Obama there's a chance to get back to that with him having been a constitutional law professor. With McCain's view of "I must overturn Roe V. Wade," we will not. Take the politics out of the court once and for all.

    June 27, 2008 at 3:59 pm |
  133. Julie from LA

    The conservatives on the Supreme Court already damaged America enough in 2000 when they stopped the vote counting in order to hand the presidency to George Bush.

    I do not want a majority of Supreme Court judges to be Republican appointees. That will mean a Court completely controlled by social conservatives who will impact all aspects of American life for the next two decades.

    The judicial balance of the court needs to be restored, as it would with an Obama presidency. He will choose judges who, above all else, understand and respect the Constitution and laws of the United States.

    No more social conservatives setting the agenda for all of us.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:00 pm |
  134. Ted Beaverton, OR

    They're fine as long as they follow the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. As far as the 4th amendment is concerned, they've evidently forgotten how to read. Then again, not everyone will agree with all their decisions, I'd like to see a subset of Legislation checkers with no lobbyists to make sure laws are not passed that circumvent the Constitution. If it doesn't pass muster, nobody even gets to vote on it. Much of the Supreme court business comes from sloppy or purposeful junk legislation from the selfish minds of Congress who think they can slip one over on us. A jaded Justice Department doesn't help either.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:00 pm |
  135. David Alexandria, VA

    I wish it didn;t matter at all. In an ideal world (and perhaps the one envisioned by the founders) the Justives are suppoesed to be unbiased interpreters of the Constitution. They are the smart people of last resort who settle things which scads of smart peoile in lower courts could not settle.

    Nothing irritates me more than seeing someone in the confirmation hearings asking "how would you vote on X?" because it so misses the point. So, nothing would disappoint me more than someone voting because they feel that McCain or Obama would seed the court for political gain.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:02 pm |
  136. Kirk (Apple Valley, MN)

    Not much. Sure, I didn't agree with the decision disallowing the death penalty for raping a child. Nor did I agree with the decision yesterday allowing gun ownership in Washington, D.C. I did, however agree, mostly, with their decision about the rights of those being held in Guantanamo (although I don't think they should be allowed the rights that we, as American citizens, theoretically have). In the long run, the SCOTUS decisions balance out and as such won't have a lot of impact on my decision this November.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:05 pm |
  137. Ken in NC

    It carries no weight in how I will vote. Nothing much carries any weight now except the economy. The Justices cannot fix it. If they could then they would be on the ticket.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:05 pm |
  138. Kelly, Philadelphia

    No. Considering we've had 8 years of Reagon, 4 years of George H. Bush, and 8 years of George W. Bush who were all clearly against abortion and appointed conservative judges to support their views, it really didn't impact Roe Vs. Wade in the slightest. I choose to vote with my head based on issues the government can control. I expect men and women of the cloth to steward the moral integrity of the country not politicians.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:05 pm |
  139. Janet, America via Toronto

    Of Course! Evolution is constant and when our Government either stands still or reversal of thought takes hold. We must send a clear message that it is unacceptable to the Millions of Americans, and its diversity,

    June 27, 2008 at 4:06 pm |
  140. Caycee, Pearl City Hawaii

    It's one of the most crucial matters of this election, as we've lately seen, because the Supreme Court is supposed to defend the Constitution and US civil liberties. The fact that we now have one of the highest prisoner populations in the world and the largest federal deficit in history obviously proves that there's something wrong with our way of life, and the people we elect to govern.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:07 pm |
  141. L.M.,Arizona

    Very much if the country since 2004 has been going in the wrong direction according to about 80% + of the population then the court has played their part in it.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:11 pm |
  142. David,San Bernardino,CA.

    Anyone who values the constitution,civil rights and individual freedoms can do nothing but vote democratic. The recent actions by the supreme court since the appointing of Alito and Roberts shows that the corporate and religious right dominated republicans have no interest in law. Our very way of life and country are at stake. We must bring fairness and common sense back to the supreme court.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:11 pm |
  143. janet in oklahoma

    Yes it does concern me because I would hate to see Roe v Wade overturned. It has helped a lot of young women who without it would have to resort to injury and maybe death. I also don't want anyone who won't uphold our constitution or gives it an interpretation that is theirs and not the founding fathers.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:11 pm |
  144. betty Reed

    There are 7 republicans and 2 democrats in the supreme court. How many more republicans do they want? Oh, by the way, there was 5 republicans and 2 democrats that first voted for Roe vs Wade back in 1973. they won't overturn it.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  145. Henry David on Walden pond

    It will be part of the equation, but not the sum of the Hypotenuse

    June 27, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  146. Allen from Hartwell, Georgia

    The future of the Supreme Court is minor at this point. Given the state of the country and the anger of the people, if things don't change with the next election the people might decide to overthrow our current government for something more responsive to the needs of the people.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  147. Bev, Los Angeles

    Yes it will Jack but only in part. Judges will determine whether Roe V Wade is maintained. Those of us in our 60's remember having to bury women killed by butchers instead of real doctors. But beyond that we women need equal pay, we need a break from the policies of war and economic insecurity, we need a president that will take on the greed of the oil companies and speculators. That means we need a break from McBush and Cheney's Haliburton. These folks have driven us working women into the ground! Please everyone, vote and work for Obama!

    June 27, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  148. Eugene in Myers Flat, California

    Most definitely. Vote for Obama and his liberal Supreme Court will legislate our right's away, as well as our 2nd Ammendment Rights.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  149. Mickie in Philadelphia, PA

    I've noticed that most of the people who either "don't care" or who think we should have more of the "conservative" judges, seem to be men. Of course, they don't have to worry about a right to abortion if they get raped, or women's rights being taken away (many men would like to have the woman as chattel again). I'm old enough to remember when women had no rights and the Justices are VERY important. I would never want McCain to appoint more Justices. By the way, the gentleman who said the democrats didn't care in 2004, obviously has a poor memory. That guy could have had Harriet Meyers.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  150. Josh

    Oh sure Jack, Its at the top of my list. Behind Iraq, gasoline, and the economy. Definitely.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  151. Jasmine in Germany

    The expert is Senator Obama, let him make some suggestions and give intelligent advice.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  152. Bill from Alabama

    You bet! There is no way I will vote for someone as Liberal and Radical as Obama,and intrust that job to him. This country would be forever changed for the worse,if Obama gets the job.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  153. Deb from Lancaster, PA

    The question of The Supremes makes a tremendous difference in my vote. Just like the Executive Branch, more of the same type of appointments that we have had in the Bush Administration would seriously upset the balance of judicial input in this country, and civil liberties would take a real hit as a result (As if they haven't already.)
    One needs only to review the number of 5-4 decisions of late to realize that.
    The three justices most likely to retire first are hardly of the same persuasion that a Republican president would appoint. A Democrat in the White House is critical to the balance of judicial temperament that will affect our nation for many, many years to come.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  154. Ron Russell from SF

    It's one of the big reasons why I'll vote against McCain, who's a real fan of Scalia. We have too many Conservative Activist Judges now. They talk about strictly interpreting the Framer's intent. but yesterday Scalia said that Americans should have a handgun, so they can use the other hand to dial the police. Yea, I'm sure that the framers had the phone in mind, when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. Scalia also ruled that Ledbetter had to sue, before she knew she was discriminated against. Another of the Wing Nuts "Common Sense Judges".

    June 27, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  155. Cheryl Cocoa, Fl

    It's not quite up there with Iraq and the economy, but it is very important to me to keep a good balance on the Court. I am an independent, and feel I am "middle of the road" on a lot of issues. I support the 2nd Amendment ( in fact all of the Bill of Rights) but I also support a woman's right to choose. I really don't think that gays right to marriage is an issue'. If they want it, give it to them. I want my constitutional rights protected against Presidents and Congressmen who think they have the power to take them away.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  156. Karen, Idaho Falls Idaho

    Hi Jack,

    The future of the Supreme Court depends more on the validation of the Congress than the selection by the President. I would hope any person nominated for the highest judicial position in the land would be able to disassociate his/her decisions from his/her own personal beliefs. If they can't do that, the Supreme Court is nothing.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  157. David Richards

    The biggest fear I have, and every woman should be made to understand this, If John McCain is elected President the Supreme Court will become a 7-2 conservative court. And that Court would certainly overturn Roe v. Wade. I shudder to think of the distruction to civil liberties and checks and balances that Court could do. And the change would last for at least a generation. It's enough to get this Libertarian to vote Democratic in November.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:25 pm |
  158. helen myczkowski

    Absolutely! The past two elections prove it. I remember telling anyone who would listen, please vote democrat if you dont the Supreme Court will be tilted against a womans right to choose, gun laws, education, food programs, Gay rights and aabove it all We Lose America, So YES it does influence my vote and it should influence all of us. Remember your daughters and sons still have to deal with these decisions! So vote your conscience. I am 74 years old and cannot nor do I wish to ever again get pregnant but tthat does not make me less of a woman. Helen Myczkowski

    June 27, 2008 at 4:25 pm |
  159. Ann, Newton, New Jersey

    The Supreme Court has been having a lot to say recently about our laws. Unfortunately, the American people have no say as to who should be nominated to the Supreme Court. We can only hope that when they go before Congress for confirmation, the right questions will be asked as to their qualifications.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:25 pm |
  160. Karen, Idaho Falls Idaho

    Hi Jack,

    The future of the Supreme Court depends more on the validation of the Congress than the selection by the President. I would hope any person nominated for the highest judicial position in the land would be able to disassociate his/her decisions from his/her own personal beliefs. If they can't do that, the Supreme Court is nothing.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  161. Gigi in Alabama

    If it doesn't weigh on independents and democrats, it should. Four more years of the republican party in the White House will set this country back into the middle of the 20th century. We should be moving forward . . . not backward.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  162. Gene

    As in all elections, many things are concidered when I go into the voting booth. I vote for the candidate I believe will best serve the country, supreme court justices being among them. Although it ranks below the economy, the war and the energy crisis, I would say that it ranks in the top five on my list. Just don't appoint inept judges that will answer their critics with an uncaring so????????

    June 27, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  163. Randy, Salt Lake City

    I don't care. We're all doomed no matter who's in the court.

    BTW, Roe v Wade will NEVER be overturned. The right-wing nut jobs use it to galvanize the mouth breathers of 'Murika to vote for Repugs.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  164. Joe C Aston, PA

    Jack the supreme court is just another arm of both political parties. Nothing they say has any importance to me. All nine members need to ready the Treay of Tripoli Secion 11

    June 27, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  165. Annie, Atlanta

    It always has, thought it didn't make a difference the last two elections in the very red state of Georgia. We can only hope this time around.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  166. Rachael in Princeton, NJ

    Absolutely. These justices have the power to rule on our rights as Americans. It's very important to me that their views reflect that of the people. They should acy as a check and balance to the legislative branch. However, a president trying to push his own agenda will use his nominating authority to look out for political interests, no the interests of the American people.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  167. Lil from TN

    Of course it will matter, as it has mattered in each of the presidential elections in which I have voted. However, you only have to look at the current court's makeup to tell that not many of my picks for prez have been successful! I don't like the way the court is headed, and if another social conservative gets on the court, heaven help us.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:33 pm |
  168. maryann in CT

    It has ALWAYS swayed my vote...and the recent craziness (increased rights for non-citizens, for example), should make EVERYONE want the less liberal candidate to win...moderate is the way to go, and Obama is the farthest from the middle of the field...spin that, Jack

    June 27, 2008 at 4:33 pm |
  169. Dick B

    I hope the next President chooses Jack to replace Justice Kennedy. Since Jack is so stubborn and cranky he probably wouldn't even vote on cases. That would create a 4-4 tie and nothing would get done for years. I believe we should start a "Jack in Black" campaign.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:33 pm |
  170. john marlton, nj

    I am not convinced either candidate or any President can truly tilt the court in the long run. Recent decisions have been close, but one could argue the reasoning behind each was void of political chest pounding, reflected the spirit of the constitution, and as important slammed shut ideological gateways that may have been exploited later by proponents of the dissenting opinion.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:34 pm |
  171. Josefina, Houston, TX

    Absolutely Jack! If you were to put everything else aside and only consider bread and butter issues, this "new" supreme court has voted in lock step with big business. From the ruling in the Sex Discrimination case of that Alabama woman who sued her former employer for equal pay, to the latest ruling of the Exxon Valdez where ExxonMobile only has to pay $500Million in damages, when the victims were asking for over $2 Billion, speaks volumes to me! I know for whom I'm voting for next Novemeber and it's not John McCain because in the end, conservative really means big business and doesn't stand for anything else in my view.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:34 pm |
  172. Toni Boutwell, Myrtle Beach SC

    Absolutely> The thought of McBush naming even one justice, with his 1950's mentality, his disrespect for women's rights his war mongering attitude is disgusting. We need progress FORWARD, not in reverse.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:37 pm |
  173. Carol, CA

    I think it is a very important issue that we need to think about very carefully. Even though the economy is top priority for most, there are so many issues that are equally important including the appointment of Supreme Court justices. In fact, it is probably the most important issue for future generations. I know that I'm a Democrat because I do not believe the Republican view on how our society should be, including adding religion (Evangelical Christian) restrictions imposed on everyone whether they believe it is right or not. Separation of church and state is all we have going for us, otherwise we would be just like the middle east. That needs to be preserved at all costs!

    June 27, 2008 at 4:38 pm |
  174. kay morris

    No, Barack Obama is my choice and the Justices cannot reduce my gas price, fix the economy or return this country to it's #1 staus of time past. Obama can!!

    June 27, 2008 at 4:38 pm |
  175. Don Bezler

    Jack,I want my vote to give woman the right to CHOSE.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:38 pm |
  176. donna myrtle beach, SC

    As a woman of course it matters. I've seen enough of my God-given free will being threatened.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:40 pm |
  177. James, San Diego

    Fair-minded and dedicated to upholding the law? Which country's Supreme Court are you talking about?

    June 27, 2008 at 4:41 pm |
  178. Harold from Anchorage, AK

    The recent decision by the Court to not punish Exxon's criminal destruction in Prince William Sound shows how this country has moved ever closer to the fusion of government and industry, which is called fascism. WWII didn't solve the problem.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:41 pm |
  179. Carol

    I will not lose one nights sleep over it. How many years have the republicans had to over turn Roe vs Wade 30 plus. And what about the democrats and health care and a living wage for those on minimun wages. Have we seen that happen in our life time. Maybe you will in yours but I haven't in mine.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:45 pm |
  180. James- San Antonio

    It really doesn't matter at all. The supreme court isn't responsible for high gas prices and a slowing economy. Getting a President in office who cares and matters for the economy is what really matters. Go Obama, Go.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:45 pm |
  181. Tom - Las Vegas, Nevada

    You would have to be a fool for it not to. The presidents power doesn't come from his genius or imposing stature, or the current example wouldn't have been able to do nearly as much damage. The presidents real power comes from the appointments he makes, not just in the judiciary but throughout government services.

    You don't like EPA standards, no problem, appoint people to the EPA who won't enforce them or who will re-write them to your liking.

    You don't like the foreign intelligence that you get from the intelligence agencies, no problem, appoint people who see the world he way you want it to look.

    You don't like Liberal activist judges that legislate from the bench, no problem, appoint Conservative activist judges that will legislate from the bench.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:46 pm |
  182. Marlys Gallo

    Obama has to win. "The Bush Supreme Court" is taking our constitutional rights away one at a time. Now If we are harmed by a medical device or drug, we no longer have the right to our day in court. The present Supreme Court is looking out for big business, and the hell with us. I'm going to vote for Obama, and hope he can salvage what's left of our rights.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:46 pm |
  183. John Watson

    It definietly will affect my decision concerning voting for President. The seats that will be filled in the next 1-2 Presidential terms will determine the long term future of this country much more than the Legislative or Executive Branches. The United States needs a moderate Suprem Court. What will we get with either Presidential Candidate. Lincoln appointed Salmon Chase Chief Justice after Chase resigned as Secretary of the Treasury and supported all of Lincoln"s Reconstruction plans.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:47 pm |
  184. Theresa in Katrinaville

    It's more important than the Supreme Court, abortion and gun rights. Presidents appoint all Federal Judges in every State, which affects people more than they realize. Federal Judges in Louisiana and Mississippi overturned jury verdicts in Katrina insurance lawsuits, and the majority of those jduges were appointed by republican presidents. If you want corporations running the country keep voting republican.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:52 pm |
  185. Lisa L.

    It's bad enough that even after the Bush-Cheney regime the justices that they helped on to the court will be there long afte Bush-Cheney are gone. Only Obama can get the right people on the bench.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:53 pm |
  186. Bruce St Paul MN

    If you put all the issues on ping-pong balls and put them in a tumbler, each one would pop out saying Democrat. The Supreme court is just another reason. Federal judges, U.S. Attorneys, tax policy, Iraq, women's rights, civil rights, global warming, education, national security, etc, etc, etc. . The Republican party never made the transition from political party to governing party. They have my well-earned contempt.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:54 pm |
  187. Kim, Dodge City, Kansas

    The last time the Supremes got into the election quagmire, we ended up with the village idiot as our Cheif Executive. Obama is a specialist in Constitutional Law, so I would hope he has a much better working knowledge of what is legal and what is not, and what is expected of a Supreme Court Judge. Unfortunately, Bush did much to erode our confidence in the courts by getting them to do away with our rights to privacy. Restoring the Constitution would be a great accomplishment for Obama.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:54 pm |
  188. Casey in CA

    YES. It's time to take back our Presidency, our Congress and our Justice system. No torture, no wiretapping, no overturning elections, no anti-gay and anti-woman rulings.

    June 27, 2008 at 4:59 pm |
  189. Shafi Alam

    Whoever is the president, the Supreme Court with conscientious judges will remain quite balanced. Their decisions bring changes with longer effect. But most of the time it does not happen quite often. The president being the executive brings change considering priorities. With so many problems to be fixed by the president and the congress, my attention is now focused on the November election. Senator Barack Obama with law degree from Harvard will be better in nominating judges in the Supreme Court.

    June 27, 2008 at 5:00 pm |
  190. dominic hattiesburg, MS

    History has shown that Presidents who choose Justices on a liberal or conservative basis have had mixed results at best. If you're naive enough to choose a candidate on this issue then take your chances. You're much better served, however, to consider issues of immediate impact like energy policy and the domestic economy. The President will have a huge determination in how this economy plays out in the next four years.

    June 27, 2008 at 5:02 pm |
  191. Flo

    Not at all!! We've got a gas prices through the roof, an economy that is spiraling downward, an a broken Military, among other things. Sorry, but the USSC isn't even on the radar with all that.

    June 27, 2008 at 5:06 pm |
  192. Ralph, Long Island, NY

    If you like Obama you'll probably like the Supreme Court Judges he'd pick. Same if you like McCain, Nader, or Barr.

    June 27, 2008 at 5:07 pm |
  193. Jay R. from Indiana

    Wont change the fact that I will be voting for McCain. 4 more years of low taxes, please.

    June 27, 2008 at 5:09 pm |
  194. Matthew

    Heck yes it will Jack. They have their conservative obstructionist judges, and I want my Liberal obstructionist judges. It's rather sad the Supreme court has just become another battleground of politics. However, this is the reality we live in, and Id rather come to the fight armed then unarmed.

    June 27, 2008 at 5:11 pm |
  195. Emily Rose

    The appointing of justices is absolutely the most important part of the presidency. Although the president's term is only 4 years, a supreme court justice is for life...In a president's appointment, he or she leaves a legacy of ideals for the next several decades.

    June 27, 2008 at 5:11 pm |
  196. David from Florida

    Thank you Jack, thank you! I'm a student studying law and from the beggining the determining factor in my vote has been the supreme court. I bit of me dies every time I see one of those polls asking what effects your vote, and the Supreme Court is absent from it. I'm casting my vote for Obama because I'm afraid of another Scalia, thank you for helping to make this an issue, I hope you bring it up until we are all sick of hearing about it!

    June 27, 2008 at 5:11 pm |
  197. Kenneth Poovey

    We must have someone on the court to balance Thomas and Scalia, who are completely political and result-oriented in their approach to jurisprudence. That is probably 50% of the reason I will vote for Barack Obama.

    June 27, 2008 at 5:12 pm |
  198. Mike

    It only matters if we have ANY rights left before bush leaves office.

    June 27, 2008 at 5:12 pm |
  199. Renee

    I was a civil rights litigator for 15 years. To me, it is the ONLY thing that matters. Ultimately, all else flows to and from the Court

    June 27, 2008 at 5:12 pm |
  200. Henry

    Since some of the judges will retire in the next presidential term, and I am a Democrat, this will make me want to vote for Obama because the liberals will have the majority in all three branches of government. America will then have less fighting in the government, and issues will be able to be solved with less delay.

    New York

    June 27, 2008 at 5:12 pm |
  201. jarry kaplan

    Even though I am a Democrat I dont' want liberal nonelected, nonaccountables deciding important social issues. Consequently McCain gets my bote

    June 27, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  202. warren cox

    jack,,,if these two candidates are the best this country has to offer.....the supreme court is the least of our worries

    June 27, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  203. Deanna Woodham

    The appointments to the Supreme Court is a major factor as to why I shall be voting for Senator Barack Obama. I do not want Senator McCain appointing conservative judges so that the Court would be moving to the "right." I am in favor or a moderate, balance Supreme Court.

    June 27, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  204. Ira in L.A.

    Leaving a little room to hedge, I'd say it matters about 93% at this point. Could something change that? Of course; I am open-minded.
    But I doubt it. As a husband, father, thinker, I believe the stakes are too high to see Ginsburg replaced with he likes of Hainsworth, Carswell, or Scalia.

    June 27, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  205. Faith Dean

    Absolutely! Changing the composition of the Supreme Court is my primary reason for voting for Obama.

    June 27, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  206. Charlie

    The supreme court has always been a needed check of the executive branch. The future of the court weighs on my mind while considering who to vote for. The descisions the court makes are not light, and they are a special voice for the people.

    June 27, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  207. Tom Sargeant

    It will make A HUGE difference!!!!!

    Because we have separation of powers in this country, the president only has so much power, on his own for what happens in this country. He does have power to inflluence the other branches of power, i.e. Judicial branch, by who he nominates for the Supreme court.

    If you want the Supreme Court to share your values, elect a President that shares your values.

    June 27, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  208. Ed in Colorado

    The Supreme Court is one of about half a dozen key issues for me in the election. As an independent voter and centrist, keeping balance on the court is critical.

    June 27, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  209. Larry in Tuscaloosa

    It matters a great deal. Considering the Supreme Court is one of my two main reasons for voting for Sen. McCain. The other is age. I prefer experience over youth and substance over style!

    June 27, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  210. Derick, Greenlawn NY

    It wasn't a deciding factor in my decision to support Sen. Obama, but I'm very pleased to know that he supports judges who understand they must balance literal interpretation of the Constitution against true justice. As the branch of the government with the most insulation from the whims of society and politics, the Supreme Court must sometimes be bold enough to push the limits of the American people, as with its decisions in Lawrence v. Texas and Brown v. Board of Education.

    June 27, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  211. Mark

    The supreme court is a huge issue in this election. The court will most likely remain balanced in an Obama Administration. In a McCain Administration, the court will continue to list to the right until it is securely conservative for decades to come.

    Obama won't have to look far and wide for Justice nominees. He campaigned with one today in Unity, NH!

    June 27, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  212. Arin - West Palm Beach, Florida

    I wish more Americans were aware of the importance of the Supreme Court in this upcoming election; for me, the next President's ability to nominate up to three justices is a critical factor in my vote. If Senator Obama is not elected President, then all I can say is this: Long live Justice Stevens.

    June 27, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  213. John form MN

    Yes it would affect my vote. When judges have enough power to over throw an election that would affect my vote. There needs to been a better judicial system that can obey the constitution and do what's right. My vote would be Obama.

    June 27, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  214. Zach Dresher

    Jack, The supreme court is just another reason why we need a democrat elected in the next election. As you mentioned, two of the oldest judges are both liberals, and if McCain is elected, you know he will try to fill those spots with conservatives. As seen in the way the latest rulings such as gun control came out, its proven how conservative our court system can be. We need more liberal votes in the Highest Court to move our country forward, as opposed to McCain's conservative backwards.

    June 27, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  215. Bob in Seattle

    The implications are too HIGH ......
    Do we regress to the past with McCain or tackle a brighter future with Obama? .... I'm picking the later.
    The American people can not withstand another Alito, Thomas, Scalia and their like ....... We deserve better....

    June 27, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  216. Greg in Boulder, CO

    If you had asked me this question 3 months ago, the answer would have been "No". Not realizing the impact of our SCOTUS has been my achilles heel this election cycle – and at 29 years, this has been a tremendous wake up call on the impact youth are having on a vote that they do not fully comprehend based on a handful of cherry picked issues presented by two parties with no desire to fully represent MY interests at the national level. To the point: YES – The ideological structure of SCOTUS just became HUGE to me!

    June 27, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  217. Ellen

    Most people don't seem to realize the perhaps the greatest power they are giving the President is the potential to chose a Supreme Court Justice – who will be of their leaning!!
    Look what Mr Bush got to do- Chief Justice plus another judge to add to the mess that he has created of this country!
    We cannot afford a continuation of Mr Bush and his policies via John McCain- the public needs to be aware of this and vote accordingly.

    June 27, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  218. Chad from Longmont

    Yes, it will significantly impact my vote. Most of the justices are conservative or moderate, and one or two more liberal justices will balance the court. Additionally, the older justices are liberal, and I'm afraid of who McCain might pick to replace retiring justices. He has stated that he will pick conservatives in the mold of Alito and Thomas.

    June 27, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  219. Ted

    I am a conservative and vote Republican, and I assume that if a conservative wins the presidency, he will naturally appoint conservative Supreme Court judges. Therefore, I give no special thought to Supreme Court appointments when I vote.

    June 27, 2008 at 5:20 pm |
  220. Emile Perrin

    First, my congratulations Jack on being about the only one on CNN who tells it like it is. Refreshing compared to a Lou Dobbs, who tries to have us believe that, because he once in a while believes thatm as a Republican having found a conscience, that makes him an Independent.

    As a Canadian lawyer, I have always been appalled at the fact that your Courts, including the Supreme Court, are politicised. Worst still, Americans find that situation normal. It is not. If one institution must remain independent, it's the judiciary.

    I have 3 points tom make:

    First, get rid of this notion those appointments for life for Federal Judges. That was adopted at a time when people didn't live as long. It is absolutely disgraceful to see some of these old, oxygen tank carrying, hard to stand on their feet old men, just staying there until their party can appoint a fellow Republican or Democrat.

    Second, if the judiciary is to be independent, it would be high time some independents, not party hacks, be appointed to that Court.

    Finally, since that most dysfunctional of all legislative branch, the Senate, must advise and consent on those nominations to the High Court, it would be nice if Americans gave the Democrats at leasst 60 senators, to get anything done in that place.

    June 27, 2008 at 5:21 pm |