The next President will appoint at least two, and probably three, Supreme Court Justices. It’s sad to say, but Justices Stevens is growing old, and Justice Souter wants out. I’ll miss you both.
If John McCain appoints their replacements, it will be the end of Roe v. Wade at the least, and the end of the Constitution as a document of social justice, at most.
As usual, Tom Toles gets it. John McCain may be a “maverick,” in that he attempts to work on bipartisan measures such as campaign finance reform, but as President, he would be beholden to his base to appoint conservative justices like Alito and Roberts who, as I have shown, would happily tear down the bipartisan measures upon which McCain builds his image. Further, while McCain may not want to push through the bitterly divisive social measures his base demands (on abortion, gay rights, etcetera), his judicial nominees would more than happily build those measures into law for him.
One example. Roe v. Wade is fragile. The current Court dealt it a near-fatal blow with Gonzales. And as Jeffrey Toobin, lawyer, politican analyst, and author of The Nine argued at an event at the New School here in New York on March 4th, a McCain Court would capitalize upon this weakness to destroy the right to choose once and for all. There’s every reason to believe that more than half of America would not want this, but it would happen. This ought to be a campaign issue.
A vote for McCain is a vote for the continuance of the Roberts tailspin towards the erosion of American law. Before Roberts, Justice Scalia would often push for the wrong result, but at he would have good, sound, legal reasonings for that result. The Roberts Court, however, doesn’t just write bad policy – it writes bad law. And so would any McCain appointee.
(Update: for more on the partisanship of the Supreme Court, the previous post has more facts & examples.)
The Supreme Court has pretty much spit on the Constitution since it ruled that 1) a sitting president could be sued while in office for a mere civil suit–Jones v. Clinton and 2) votes and perverting the construction of the 14th amendment don’t matter–Bush v. Gore. So you’re absolutely correct–we need a Democrat as president and we need a Democratic Senate to make sure the court can restore the Constitution. It has been shat on by the Bush admin, and those cases haven’t come before the court yet. Good post. I haven’t heard hardly anything from the candidates about the court.
Posted by huntingdonpost | April 29, 2008, 5:34 pmAgreed. You might like Jeff Toobin’s book if you feel strongly about this :-).
Also I’d like to take the chance to thank all my readers… I’m glad you all apparently enjoy some of this!
Posted by Ames | April 29, 2008, 8:59 pmI assume your contention is that Obama or Clinton would only appoint the most neutral, centrist and non-partisan of judges?
Posted by Progressive Conservative | April 30, 2008, 7:48 pmA second question: When you say, ‘…why moderates should worry about McCain’ are you really talking about Centrists or are you talking about true moderates? I see moderates as being less-than-passionate. Those with conviction of belief are no moderates. If you’re talking about those who aren’t at either end of the spectrum, then you’re talking about Centrists.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | April 30, 2008, 7:51 pmI think moderates are different from Centrists, and if I understand this correctly in relation to judges, one should desire moderates, those who can act dispassionately, rather than Centrists, who hold a political ideology. We have enough ideology on the court.
Posted by huntingdonpost | April 30, 2008, 8:05 pmI think McCain and Clinton would NOT appoint justices who would overturn old cases willy nilly, nor would they appoint justices who camouflage their attempts to do so behind a veil of nonpartisanship.
My interpretation of the Constitution is that it is a liberal document – I believe a non-biased justice would rule accordingly. BUT, I realize there’s substantial disagreement on the subject, which means that an equally nonpartisan judge with a different conception of the document could create very conservative jurisprudence, and come by it honestly. Like, as I wrote, Scalia.
My issue is not that the justices rule conservatively – it’s that the Bush appointees are saying they’re *not* doing that, and lying about the true judicial force of their opinions.
Posted by Ames | April 30, 2008, 10:30 pm