Now that Justice O'Connor is stepping down, someone asked me if I thought President Bush should appoint a woman to take her place. And of course he should. In fact, he and all future presidents need to keep on appointing women until the Supreme Court is half women, and reflects both society and the current population of the judicial system.
Unfortunately, he's likely to pick someone who reflects his social agenda, rather than someone who will simply say—when faced with the current batch of social-agenda issues before the Court—“The Constitution says nothing about that one way or the other. Talk to the Congress about passing a law on that.”
But that's not the way the conservatives or the liberals are swinging. The conservatives want someone to overturn Roe v. Wade; the liberals want someone to declare that gay marriage is legally binding throughout the U.S.; and I just want a justice who stops treating the Constitution as if it changes with the times. The Constitution was meant to be changed by amendment, not by the loose interpretations of the Supreme Court justices.
Amusing bumper sticker of the day: “Forget Roe v. Wade; overturn Bush v. Gore.”