The Current Electoral Vote Predictor 2004 page (http://www.electoral-vote.com/) this morning features a run-down on the current Supreme Court justices, who appointed them, how long they’ve been on the bench, and how old they are. While there are a few errors in this information (e.g., Ginsberg was appointed by Clinton, not by Carter), it’s still quite telling: there will more than likely be several opportunities for the next presidential administration to appoint justices to the Supreme Court.

And you know what that means: Roe v. Wade, stem cell research, and civil liberties…. to name but a few issues that will likely come before the Court.

So if you happen to be on the fence about which presidential candidate will receive your vote this November, consider this from the standpoint of the Supreme Court. Who would you rather see appointing new justices to the highest court? Keep in mind that these folks:

• have records that frequently reflect the principles and agendas of the president making the appointment;
  

• make rulings that affect pretty much every aspect of our lives;
  

• have the job of interpreting the intention and letter of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights; and
  

• serve life terms.
  

That’s no small consideration when choosing someone to sit in the Oval Office.

The votemaster makes another good point on this page:

Furthermore, a president makes far more appointment to the appellate courts than to the Supreme Court, and they hear far more cases per year. If you approve of the appointments Bush has made to the appellate courts, surely you want to give him the chance to make more. If you don’t approve, maybe somebody else should be doing the appointing. The next president’s appointments could shape the country for decades to come.

Some food for thought this Friday morning, with the election only eleven days away….