The Search for (a) Justice
For the first time in 11 years, the composition of the Supreme Court of the United States is about to change. To read much of what has been published since Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement, one would think the decisions from the court next term will be radically different from the current Rehnquist court. The media is doing little to educate the public about reality when it comes to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Lifetime appointments such as these leave little incentive for justices to follow any political "line." Justice John Paul Stevens, generally regarded as the court's most liberal member, was appointed by a Republican. So was David Souter, another more consistently liberal voice on the court. History has many such examples, including Earl Warren, William Brennan and Harry Blackmun, all Republican appointees who went on to write majority opinions that were anathema to conservatives.
Bush Administration watchers would have us believe that such judicial surprises can be avoided by careful questioning of the nominee before his or her name is sent to Congress, in order to determine general philosophy if not specific political stands. It may have worked with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, but it is far from foolproof. The very consistency that may make a nominee a safe bet for a nominating President may also ensure a more bruising confirmation battle. And, even if the nomination of a "philosophically pure" candidate succeeds, it is always possible that another moderate member of the court might move to fill the swing-vote shoes of a Justice O'Connor.
The respect for judicial precedent means most Supreme Court justices hesitate before overruling the decisions of prior Courts. This is a concept understood by most law school graduates. It is one that the media should help the public to understand rather than feed the misconception that Roe vs. Wade is about to be overturned.
Lifetime appointments such as these leave little incentive for justices to follow any political "line." Justice John Paul Stevens, generally regarded as the court's most liberal member, was appointed by a Republican. So was David Souter, another more consistently liberal voice on the court. History has many such examples, including Earl Warren, William Brennan and Harry Blackmun, all Republican appointees who went on to write majority opinions that were anathema to conservatives.
Bush Administration watchers would have us believe that such judicial surprises can be avoided by careful questioning of the nominee before his or her name is sent to Congress, in order to determine general philosophy if not specific political stands. It may have worked with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, but it is far from foolproof. The very consistency that may make a nominee a safe bet for a nominating President may also ensure a more bruising confirmation battle. And, even if the nomination of a "philosophically pure" candidate succeeds, it is always possible that another moderate member of the court might move to fill the swing-vote shoes of a Justice O'Connor.
The respect for judicial precedent means most Supreme Court justices hesitate before overruling the decisions of prior Courts. This is a concept understood by most law school graduates. It is one that the media should help the public to understand rather than feed the misconception that Roe vs. Wade is about to be overturned.
1 Comments:
Even if it becomes "The Search for (more than a) Justice," the role of the fourth estate is clear, and I like the fact that you are calling them out! Let's get a table going that shows columns for "expected," "delivered," and "who woulda thunk?" remarks about key decisions by justice over the years. Lifetime appointments really do change people--like winning the lottery!
M
Post a Comment
<< Home