Presidency and the Supreme Court -- Energion Roundtable Q. 8
As the November election
is now less than a month away, perhaps we’re becoming more aware of how
important our votes truly are. No
candidate or party is perfect, but our choices have consequences, and that’s
the point raised by this week’s Energion Political Roundtable question (#8). In this
week’s question, we focus on the role of the presidency in choosing members of
the Supreme Court:
One of the ways in which a president shapes the future of the country is through appointments to the judiciary, and especially the Supreme Court. How do you see each candidate shaping the future of the court, and why is this important? (If you are supporting a particular candidate, focus on that one.)
One of the oft
forgotten responsibilities of a President is choosing members of the judiciary,
and most importantly, the Supreme Court.
Because Federal Judges and Supreme Court Justices serve for life (or
when they choose retirement), judicial appoints become a Presidential
legacy. Since Republicans have held the
Presidency for twenty of the past thirty-two years, they have had a greater
opportunity to put their imprint on the nation’s courts, which is why I find it
a bit odd that Republicans have such a low view of the courts. It’s true, justices and judges can surprise us, but
Presidents understand this role very well, and so they try to do what they can
to make sure that they leave a judicial legacy that will last long after they
have left office and even life itself.
When it comes to the
Supreme Court, the opportunity to influence the direction of the court is a
rare one. As we’ve of late these choices
matter. Whether it’s campaign finance
reform, health care, gun rights, or religious liberty for that matter, the
Courts have an important say in how this nation is governed and the way we live
our lives. We often hear about judicial activism, but in reality it goes both
ways. No justice comes to the
Constitution or the issues standing before them without any sense of bias.
After all, why would a President choose a nominee who didn’t at least share
some of that President’s priorities? And
so, because Republican Presidents have had more opportunities than Democratic
ones to make appointments, the Court has had a rather conservative cast in
recent years.
Presidents quickly
become very aware of this opportunity to frame legal debates for years to
come. Therefore, not only do they try to
pick candidates that share their views, but also ones who will serve long
enough to influence decisions long after they’ve left office. Consider that Justices Scalia and Kennedy, both
76 years old, were appointed by Ronald Reagan more than two decades ago. As far
as I can tell, neither of these men is in any hurry to retire, so President
Reagan’s legacy will continue on for the foreseeable future in their decisions.
President Obama has had
two opportunities to make appointments to the Supreme Court, and may have the
opportunity to appoint at least one more in the coming four years. The most likely person to leave the court is
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is 79 and has had some health issues. She’s given no indication she’s looking to
leave, but she could leave and might if a Democrat is in office to protect what
little leverage the “liberal” minority has on the court. If she or Justice Breyer were to retire or
die during a Romney term, it’s likely that a much more conservative Justice
would be appointed, and that could cement a conservative majority for years to
come.
Being that I live on
the left side of the center, and because I’ve been frustrated by rulings such
as the Citizen’s United ruling as well as a number of gun regulation rulings,
and with important issues such as marriage equality and affirmative action
moving up toward the Supreme Court, I’m concerned about the direction the Court
would take under a more decidedly conservative perspective. I’m
concerned about how the Court will affect social mobility, fairness, and
justice for all.
A President Romney will
set a conservative course, one that will protect certain corporate interests,
perhaps hamper efforts at protecting the environment and equal rights, and will
most likely seek to hold back progress for gay and lesbian persons seeking
recognition for their relationships. A
President Obama, on the other hand, will have the opportunity, perhaps more at the
lower court level and in appeals courts, to craft a judicial bench that is more
supportive of equal rights for minorities, for gays and lesbians, and for
women, as well as support efforts to protect the environment.
The choice is important
and shouldn’t be taken lightly. Many
decisions that Presidents make won’t last beyond their time in office, but
that’s not true here. Yes, the stakes
are high and lasting, so we must choose wisely.
You can find my
conversation partners responding at their own blogs: Allan Bevere, Elgin Hushbeck, Joel Watts, and Arthur Sido.
Comments