I don't think anybody has that crystal ball but the president.
I do not mean that you could continue to do this with propriety or even with safety; I merely assert that the power is, in point of fact, in your hands. And for such a power, what a responsibility to God and man!
The president does not have any obligation to make a consensus appointment here. What the president's obligation is, is to pick a judicial conservative, and I believe that's what he's gonna do.
So we need the same strategy, we need young, aggressive judges to be appointed, and that's what the President has done, but getting them through is the challenge.
We've been following Judge Alito's career over the last 15 years, while he's been on the Court of Appeals.
What if you threw a protest and no one showed up? The lack of angst and anger and emotion is a big positive.
I think the court will determine that the Faith-Based Initiative that the White House has instituted in the last five years is constitutional, in the context of allowing for broad-based programs to include religious providers.
Actually criminal sanctions that are given could be up to five years for violating the rules and regulations under the campaign finance reform. This is like the Alien and Sedition Act of years and years ago, decades ago.
They're all focusing on how John Roberts is going to decide Roe v. Wade. That isn't even the right question. I don't even know of a case in the (court) system that addresses it.
If you look at Griswold, what you can see is the first time the Court recognized the right to privacy, which ends up becoming ultimately the right to abortion.