Shaping the New U.S. Supreme Court

Tweet

We haven't discussed this much here at myLot, but that's what the next President of the United States will do. Seven justices will be 70 years old or older at the time of the Inauguration including John Paul Stevens, 88 and Ruth Bader Ginsberg, 75 and having health concerns in recent years. I think we can probably all agree that the next President is going to have an impact that will last well beyond four or even eight years in the White House. http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/turning_point_the_supreme_cour_1.php Here is some of what we know about what each candidate has said regarding the Supreme Court: John McCain has said he’d favor candidates for the federal bench “who understand that they were not sent there to write our laws but to enforce them,” and singled out the conservatives John Roberts and Samuel Alito as models. Barack Obama has praised three members of the court’s liberal wing, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David Souter. And last year he declared that “we need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.” There's no denying the contrast between the candidates here as in many other issues. Here's an excerpt from the article for which I posted the link above: Given these statements of intent from the candidates, the media’s main task isn’t primarily to uncover any new information. Rather, it’s to do the relatively straightforward work of decoding these statements (which were crafted, of course, for the activist groups on both sides) and clearly explaining to voters what they indicate about the likely appointees’ decisions on real-world issues that affect voters’ lives. Using only those basic statements of principle from the candidates, it’s not hard to come up with a picture of what the press should make sure voters understand on a few crucial issues that the court is likely to rule on. For instance, on the issue of the appropriate balance between corporate and individual rights: the press should make clear that Obama’s appointees, in keeping with his desire for “empathy,” can be expected to take a broader interpretation of laws designed to protect individuals; while McCain’s, if they are indeed in the Roberts-Alito mold, will interpret these laws more narrowly, and more often come down on the side of corporations. On executive power: the press should make clear that Obama’s appointees would be more likely to oppose the continued expansion of presidential power—particularly on issues like torture, treatment of detainees, and domestic wiretapping—that began under President Bush; while McCain’s appointees would be more likely to support it, giving the president the authority to prosecute the war on terror largely as he sees fit. On voting rights: the press should make clear that Obama’s appointees would be skeptical of state-level “voter I.D.” laws of the kind that Georgia and Indiana have passed in recent years, that critics say make it overly burdensome for many poor and minority citizens to vote; while McCain’s would be more likely to see these laws as reasonable efforts to combat voter fraud. Indeed, the Supreme Court recently upheld Indiana’s law, with Roberts and Alito voting with the majority. On affirmative action: the press needs to make clear that Obama’s appointees would be more likely to support the use of race-based preferences in admissions policy as an acceptable means of achieving equality, while McCain’s would be more likely to oppose it as unconstitutional. Do you agree or disagree with this? What kind of justices would you hope to be appointed in the coming years and how much, if at all, will that affect your vote in November? Annie