THE REAL POWER PRIZE FOR THE NEXT PRESIDENT - SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENTS

As we wind down the Democratic primary race for the presidency, we are left with a sense of tension and division. It has been a long road with attacks from both parties against each other and a split among the various demographic groups comprising our voting base.

I have accepted at this point that I will not see my dream of a woman president in my lifetime. Just as African-Americans have flocked to Barack Obama in droves that reflect their desire to see one of their own succeed, women, too, have voted for Hillary Clinton to witness the ultimate “glass” ceiling shattered.

The polls indicate that both Obama supporters and Clinton supporters may desert the Democratic party to vote for John McCain. This is a betrayal which cannot be justified. We are Democrats first; then we pick our candidates to support.

But overshadowing our current divisions is the specter that no one seems to be discussing. That is the ability the next president will have to appoint at least one justice and perhaps more. We cannot let that individual be John McCain.

Photo Credit: Wikipedia

__________________________________________________________________________________

Justice John Paul Stevens recently turned 88 and has been on the Court since December 1975. Although he was appointed by Ford, he is rumored by court watchers to be delaying his exit until the “right” individual takes office. At close to 90 years old, odds are he will exit during the next president’s term.

Four other justices are either now in their 70s or within a few months of being so. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75 and survived a bout with colo-rectal cancer in 1999. Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia were born within a few months of each other in 1936 making them 72 years old. Stephan Breyer rounds out the septuagenarians, turning 70 this summer. David Souter is 68 while Clarence Thomas will turn 60 this summer - a George H.W. Bush appointment in 1991. The two youngest, Samuel Alito and John Roberts are 58 and 53 respectively.

Supreme Court justices serve for life once confirmed. They are selected for their ideological and philosophical views - views that closely match the president responsible for their selection. While a president serves for eight years at the most, Supreme Court justices impact our society and its laws for 20 to 30 years.

Long after the next president is gone, his appointments will be sitting on the bench, making decisions that impact our rights and liberties. Those justices will reflect the views of the next president, and that person cannot be John McCain.

So while I work through my disappointment, I will not lose sight of the fact that I am a Democrat first. And my obligation is to work as hard as possible to ensure that our next president is a Democrat who will appoint justices holding our Democratic values and beliefs.

“STRAIGHT TALK EXPRESS” McCAIN PUSHED INTO LAND SWAP DEAL THAT BENEFITS BACKER

John McCain is known to his minions as the “stand-firm”, “straight talk express” candidate whose integrity just simply can’t be challenged. But, all politicians are human. McCain is no different, and we are beginning to see cracks appearing in his shining armor. The cracks will, inevitably, split apart that armor and expose a flawed candidate who is not the leader many think he is and who should not be the leader of this country.

The Washington Post writes about one of those cracks today - a land swap of public land for private land that will benefit tremendously one of McCain’s donors. Land swaps between private entities usually do not draw attention; however, when that land is our land - the public’s land - transactions are scrutinized to ensure that the public is not being cheated by not receiving fair value for its land.

The process began several years ago. In 2005 McCain pushed through a piece of “land swap” legislation that will benefit Steven Betts, a McCain fundraiser and contributor. Betts runs SunCor Development, a Tempe, Arizona, firm that was given the job to build as many as 12,000 homes on the swapped land. Of course Betts denies any discussion of the swap with McCain - even though according to Betts it was discussed “casually” before the bill’s passage.

The 2005 deal is the granddaddy of Arizona land swaps - the largest such swap in Arizona history according to the Audubon Society. More than 55,000 acres were involved, including rare expanses of desert woodland and pronghorn antelope habitat.

The owner of the private land, rancher Fred Ruskin and his Yavapai Ranch Limited Partnership, arguing that the process was too complicated for the standard regulatory process governing land swaps, took the matter directly to Congress. Ruskin convinced Arizona Representative J.D. Hayworth to draft a bill proposing the exchange.

When those efforts failed, Ruskin hired lobbyists to “open communications” with McCain. Those lobbysits included the following:

• Mark Buse, a former McCain staff director at the Senate commerce committee
• Michael Jimenez, another former McCain aide
• Wes Gullett, an aide in McCain’s Senate office and deputy campaign manager for his 2000 presidential run

Ruskin’s efforts using former staff members and aides were successful and McCain introduced his land swap legislation in April 2003. The legislation was signed into law by Bush in November 2005.

McCain continued to spout platitudes about protecting the environment while pushing legislation to complete the largest land swap deal in Arizona history - legislation that will result, ultimately, in potential development ranging in the area of $250 million to Fred Ruskin.

But Ruskin isn’t the only one to benefit. Steven Betts, a McCain donor, will benefit - despite all the denials by Betts and McCain. And just when did Betts decide to express interest? After the legislation was passed by Congress and just one month before it was signed into law by Bush.

Betts will capitalize by constructing subdivisions located on prime Arizona property sitting astride a major interstate. Despite public outcry and opposition, McCain failed his constituency by caving in to pressure from lobbyists and politically powerful Arizona figures.

When questioned about the lobbyists, true to form, McCain simply states that he does not recall being lobbied by his former aides and staffers. Isn’t that what his pat response was to the allegations in reference to Vicki Iseman, the lobbyist who had become very close to him?

I have watched him on the Sunday morning political programs, and his answer to many questions is, indeed, becoming “I don’t recall.” Perhaps McCain should now carry the moniker of “I don’t recall” McCain instead of the laudatory labels attached to him. McCain’s armor is cracking, and soon it will fall apart.