OK, now no question, I'd vote for Hillary in the general, no reservations

[MarkWarner08]

These shrill attacks on John McCain are an unfortunate reaction to the media's McCain lovefest.  For the last eight years, John McCain has wooed and hoodwinked the national media into believe he's a virtuous maverick with a penchant for straight talking.

 His candidacy was created by the media (see: 2000 press coverage) and saved by the media (NH newspapers).  He'll probably schedule two press conferences a week to placate his media fans.

[MarkWarner08]

At least I can trust Hillary's judicial nominations a lot more than McCain's, that's for sure.

Hillary will probably attempt to appoint one of her hick brothers to the SCOTUS.

[MarkWarner08]

Why judicial nominations matter: The Clean Air and Water Acts could be weakened. The Endangered Species Act could be overturned. Gun control laws could be overturned. Workplace protections of women and minorities will be further weakened.  Much of the precedent from the Warren Court is at stake. SCOTUS does matter.

[MarkWarner08]

Why judicial nominations matter: The Clean Air and Water Acts could be weakened. The Endangered Species Act could be overturned. Gun control laws could be overturned. Workplace protections of women and minorities will be further weakened.  Much of the precedent from the Warren Court is at stake. SCOTUS does matter.

None of that will happen.  Sorry.

Actually, it's already happening.

Just look at these recent cases decided by the Roberts Court:
Rapanos v. United States
Carabell v. Army Corps of Engineers
Rancho Viejo v. Norton.
National Association of Home Builders et al. V. Defenders of Wildlife et al.

[MarkWarner08]

Why judicial nominations matter: The Clean Air and Water Acts could be weakened. The Endangered Species Act could be overturned. Gun control laws could be overturned. Workplace protections of women and minorities will be further weakened.  Much of the precedent from the Warren Court is at stake. SCOTUS does matter.

None of that will happen.  Sorry.

Actually, it's already happening.

Just look at these recent cases decided by the Roberts Court:
Rapanos v. United States
Carabell v. Army Corps of Engineers
Rancho Viejo v. Norton.
National Association of Home Builders et al. V. Defenders of Wildlife et al.

You seem to be predicting a massive attack on Warren precedents, but it will not happen.  They might be slightly weakened, but the precedents shall remain in place.  The SCOTUS would not dare overrule Brown completely, likewise with Miranda, Mapp, and others.

Did you look at the list of recent cases decided by the Roberts Court? They all involved a narrow majority 9 comprised of Justices appointed by Reagan/Bush 1 or Bush 2) siding with those who sough to weaken the Clear Water and Endangered Species Act. The threat to the environmental reforms of the late '60s and early '70s is real.

[MarkWarner08]

Why judicial nominations matter: The Clean Air and Water Acts could be weakened. The Endangered Species Act could be overturned. Gun control laws could be overturned. Workplace protections of women and minorities will be further weakened.  Much of the precedent from the Warren Court is at stake. SCOTUS does matter.

None of that will happen.  Sorry.

Actually, it's already happening.

Just look at these recent cases decided by the Roberts Court:
Rapanos v. United States
Carabell v. Army Corps of Engineers
Rancho Viejo v. Norton.
National Association of Home Builders et al. V. Defenders of Wildlife et al.

Rapanos and Carabell deal with the same statutory issue under the CWA.  Quite frankly, it's the dissent that wishes to expand the definition of "navigable waters" under the CWA past normal statutory interpretation. (i.e., reading stuff into the statute that ain't there)

Also, considering this is a statutory decision, if you want a different result, change the statute.   The result is not set in stone - rather say that "navigable waters" are "adjacent to tributaries of waters of the United States" instead of its present wording.

Rancho Viejo was decided by the DC Circuit, and Roberts was on the losing end there.  I don't see the relevance.

I don't know much about the other case, but I skimmed through it and it looks like another statutory interpretation thingy - see above. 

Thanks for writing a brief rundown of those cases...