EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein
- Major Loss to Organic Farmers as Court Rules in Favor of Monsanto
- NSA Whistleblower Revealed: Q&A with Edward Snowden
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- 'Reprehensible, Reckless, Illegal': Washington Officials Slam Heroic NSA Surveillance Leaker
Popular content
Today's Top News
High Court's Future at Stake
Obama and McCain show radically different approaches to the kind of justices they would nominate to the Supreme Court.
The future alignment of the Supreme Court - not Joe the Plumber or William Ayers - is one the most important issues in Tuesday's presidential election.
The justices most likely to retire next are two liberals: John Paul Stevens, 88, and Ruth Bader Ginsberg, 75. That means that if McCain follows through on a pledge to appoint conservative judges, a Supreme Court divided 5-4 on many hot-button issues will swing dramatically to the right. On the other hand, an Obama victory, even if accompanied by a Democratic landslide in the Senate, would mean that the court retains its current balance during Obama's first term.
Obama and McCain offer a stark contrast in the kind of justices they would appoint to the Supreme Court.
In a speech in May at Wake Forest University, McCain said: "I will look for accomplished men and women with a proven record of excellence in the law and a proven commitment to judicial restraint. I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist - jurists of the highest caliber, who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference."
Reacting to the Supreme Court's decision last year forbidding the consideration of race in determining which schools students could attend in Seattle and Louisville, Obama issued a statement saying, "Chief Justice Roberts' opinion reflects a disturbing view of the Constitution that equates voluntary integration with Jim Crow segregation - a view that is both legally and morally wrong. The policies that led to racially diverse schools in Seattle and Louisville are a far cry from the policies and racial subordination that led to blacks-only and whites-only schools in the pre-Brown [v. Board of Education] era. To equate the two is to turn a blind eye to our nation's history."
He added, "As president, I will appoint Supreme Court justices who understand the constitutional importance of Brown. Those justices will ultimately vindicate Brown's promise, as Justice [Stephen] Breyer and today's dissenters put it, of 'one law, one nation, one people, not simply as a matter of legal principle, but in terms of how we actually live.' "
The Supreme Court is divided into two factions. In the conservative camp are Roberts, Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. On the liberal side are Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and David Souter. Depending on the issue, Anthony Kennedy votes with either side.
Of the nine sitting justices, seven - all except Ginsburg and Breyer - were appointed by Republican presidents. Eleven of the last 13 Supreme Court appointments have been made by Republicans.
If McCain wins the election and appoints yet another conservative to the bench - which will be more difficult if Democrats extend their advantage in the Senate, which confirms or rejects judicial nominees - it will have dire consequences for affirmative action and other policies.
In 2003, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court approved the use of race as a factor in the admission of qualified students to the University of Michigan Law School. In that case, Grutter v. Bollinger, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor supplied the key fifth vote.
O'Connor, who was the court's swing vote, retired and was replaced in 2006 by Samuel Alito, a solid conservative. The appointment of one more justice in the mode of Roberts and Alito will give conservatives a five-vote majority without Kennedy, the court's current swing vote.
Possibly more important than appointments to the Supreme Court are those to the lower courts. According to National Journal, only 0.1 percent of the 60,000 cases appealed each year are taken up by the Supreme Court. Republican-appointed judges hold 54 percent of the 674 full-time U.S. District Court judgeships, and 56 percent of the 179 seats on 13 Courts of Appeals circuits.
A McCain presidency would widen that Republican advantage, and an Obama administration would narrow it.
Meanwhile, a reshaped Supreme Court, in addition to possibly eliminating or severely restricting affirmative action, could leave its imprint on other major issues, such as abortion rights, gun control, government funding of religious schools, the death penalty, civil liberties, and consumer rights.
Tuesday's election is not only a choice between Obama and McCain; it's also a referendum on the future of the Supreme Court and the direction it will take the nation.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


16 Comments so far
Show AllThe crap part of this is, of course, that the present reactionary Court was made possible by the votes of both Democrats and Republicans. Not once, did the Democratic [sic] Party go to the mat and refuse to sign off on these proto-fascists. That would require backbone, perhaps a smidgeon of principle, and the willingness to act as an opposition party.
The Dems roll this out every time, never mentioning that they always support the worst.
---------------------------------
I would rather vote for what I want and not get it, than vote for what I don't want and get that. -- Eugene V. Debs
Yep.
And to echo the article it is the NON-Supreme Court Federal Judge Nominations where the Dems have been most cooperative with the current administration.
I'd also like to point out that it is now Oct 30th -less than a week to Election day- and all that this article dedicated SOLELY to the Court issue can find fromn Obama on what kind of Judges he would nominate is a very specific quote about Brown v Board of Education with a vague generalization afterward.
This is my problem with Obama, vague, vague, vague.
Just tell be your nominations will be more like Thurgood Marshall and less like Karen Hughes and THEN I'll believe that there is such an important differnce between you and McCain and you and Bush dude.
But no, all we get are vague hints wrapped around a "talking points issue" like Brown.
Ugh.
There are enough other reasons not to vote for Obama.
That's exactly what i logged on to say.
If there is, in the words of the author, "a Democratic landslide in the Senate", then the Democrats can use their filibuster-proof super-majority to block any nominee to the court, without fuss or muss. Without needing an Obama victory to do so.
And of course, if willing to raise some fuss and muss, any 40 Democratic senators can filibuster any court nominee and take the fight to the court of public opinion. They have talked this up a couple of times, but have never used this option to fight the ugly appointments that created the current Supreme Court.
I think the Democrats are going to fall one vote short of a filibuster-proof majority. And it doesn't take into account that some of the Democrats are quite conservative and would vote against their own party anyway. But I appreciate your overall point.
It will take greater commitment and perseverance than ever to make our nation better off, because things can always quite easily get worse.
Republican conservatives will again use any trick to win, including election fraud and assassination, democracy be damned.
For them this is war and all's fair.
Wanting to win in a democratic election always puts Democrats at a big disadvantage.
Please everybody stop saying that we have "democratic" elections. Two major parties conspire and defraud us from democracy by eliminating all other parties from fully participating. This is yet one more reason why they do not deserve our votes.
Then why do you keep fighting to elect Republicans to office? Instead of hoping for Ralph Nader to show up once every four years to give you false hope, why don't you work on electing Independent Progressive/Liberal candidates on local levels where you actually have better control especially since local politics has as much if not more impact on your life. And I say the same to others in other places out there. Besides, if Nader had actually tried to reform the Green Party for the better for the past 8 years, he wouldn't be in the sorry position he's in these days. He lost my support two years ago when he refused to help local independents ala Nader win. In fact, he rudely told them to leave him alone and that campaigning for local candidates was somehow not important. In other words, Nader gives the MIDDLE FINGER. Hell, he isn't even campaigning for Cindy Sheehan. Thankfully, Nader will be irrelevant at this point. Find me a younger and a better skilled Ralph Nader who knows how to communicate with voters of all stripes and ideologies and maybe I'll give him or her my vote.
Although it will fall on deaf ears, your thinking is what is called "dualistic". One side is always "good", the other side "bad". But what if there is a larger spectrum of opinion, and what if the two "major parties" are BOTH BAD!! Dualististic thinking keeps us trapped in an endless cycle of violence and corporatism. There is no way out except to reject both parties.
Again, if the two major parties conspire as you say (and in some ways they clearly do conspire), then how come the Republican Party is so thuggishly intent on stealing elections from the Democratic Party?
Clearly, the thuggest party sees clear differences between themselves and the Democrats, and the worst among them (who have risen to the top with the Cheney / Rove neocons) are willing to literally destroy the country in order to win.
This is one of the few arguments for voting against the Republicans that gives the option of voting for the ugly Democrats some legitimacy in my mind. Yes it is a brand of "lesser-evilism", but it is a lesser-evilism that is clearly believed by the Republican thugs.
Our Supreme Court Jesters seem to be only rubber stamps for the
ChristoCorporate Fascist Dictator. Will anything change in our lifetime?
This is a DPA staple argument and one of my favorites, the "HOW ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT?" How about the vote on Chief Justice Roberts?
All 55 Republicans voted to confirm Roberts; 22 Democrats, including Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Patrick Leahy of Vermont, also voted to confirm Roberts, as did the one independent (Jim Jeffords). 22 Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, voted in opposition.
22 Democrats voted to confirm Bush's Supreme Court Chief Justice.
The "HOW ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT?" argument is a staple DPA red herring because enough Democrats always vote with the Republicans to allow the confirmation of right wing justices. How do you think they got confirmed? If Democrats are against right wing Justices why do so many vote for them?
Not only that, but if Democrats were an opposition party they would at the very least attempted to impeach Bush not let him get away with high crimes and misdemeanors. Democrats promised to end the war if you elected them and they lied. Their campaign promises are worthless.
To put your faith in Obama and the Democrats in to deceive yourself.
i hear you, but there is still a logical flaw in your argument: if one assumes that Obama would not nominate an Alito or a Roberts (seems like a reasonable assumption), then this will not place the quisling Democratic senators in the position of supporting a fascist nominee, and they can vote to approve a Ginsburg instead. Net difference, one less fascist on the court.
Good point, I was aware of the flaw in the logic but nobody ever called me on it. Thanks for pointing that out. My main point is that even when Democrats can stop Republicans they normally decide to go along with them. Obama may keep Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates. If that is a guide to the type of appointments he would make to the SCOTUS then that's not terribly encouraging.
Will Obama appoint a Supreme who agrees with his vote on FISA and the Patriot Act (destruction of the 4th amendment?)
How can I logically believe otherwise?
Will Obama appoint a Supreme who sees the extra-Constitutional powers that Bush has accreted for the Executive, and that Obama will inherit, as unConstitutional?
How can I logically believe otherwise?
Will Obama appoint a Supreme who believes that the 35 impeachable offenses that Bush has committed as irrelevant as he does?
How can I logically believe otherwise?