So, Supreme Court Justice David Souter is retiring. Weird. He's still relatively young and has no known health problems, so why retire from a prestigious lifetime post which only requires you to work a few months out of the year?
Theories abound, including a really interesting one that he was so crushed by the Court's intervention in the 2000 election (pretty quasi-legal shit for a court that conservatives want to strictly uphold the constitution) that he lost the desire to fulfill his duties and was just waiting for Bush to leave the White House so he could retire.
At any rate, the media is doing its typical feeding frenzy. CNN is asking: Who Do You Think Should Be The Next Justice? as though the fact that I can type a url makes me qualified to even begin answering that question. Most Supreme Court Justices are chosen from federal apellate courts-- how many of those can you name? I can name exactly zero, meaning I don't have a fucking clue who the next justice should be. FOX is trumping up the 'fight' over the next Justice, as though Obama has already chosen a known communist abortion doctor and the Republican minority is valiantly gearing up to do battle against the overwhelming forces of evil liberalism.
Meanwhile, every member of Congress is calling the President to give their two cents about who he should or shouldn't nominate (what a bullshit, time wasting grab for headlines!). Yesterday, Orrin Hatch (you know, the old guy from Utah who would outlaw dancing if he could) gave Obama some crazy old man speech on the phone about not choosing an 'activist' but rather someone who represents 'mainstream America'. The subtext is clear: more than half of Americans don't support gay marriage, and ol' Orrin don't want them queers a-marryin'. Correct me if I am wrong, but are Supreme Court Justices chosen based on their ability to follow public sentiment, or make legal decisions based on, um, law? If justices are nominated based on how much the public agrees with them, then they cease to be removed from politics and cease to be judges-- they become politicians.
What I wonder, though, is what motivates Congressmen and Congresswomen who know that they have no chance of swaying the President, who know that the decision is the President's alone, to clog his blackberry with borderline delirious and presumptious diatribes about what he should do.
That's like winning the lottery and having people you've met through friends calling to tell you how to spend your money. This is Obama's decision, and no silly conversation with Arlen Specter is going to make him choose differently.
On the one hand, I like to see some communication, and Obama really does welcome opposing viewpoints. But on the other hand, how genuine is this contact? Is Orrin an old but respectfully disagreeing friend calling to offer sage advice, or is he making a good show for the cameras just so when Obama chooses someone who doesn't want to white out the first amendment and replace it with the Patriot Act, Orrin can tell his constituents that he did his best to fight the dirty Democrats?
Meanwhile, a man with a whole lot of stuff on his plate, from pork flu to piracy to Pakistan, has to listen to the man who still swears Ozzy Osbourne is going to make teens commit suicide drone in his ear for half an hour.
It's freaking ridiculous. We all just need to kick back and take a Xanax and wait until Obama actually chooses someone to decide whether or not we like him/her. Unfortunately, I feel like too many people on both sides of the aisle already have their minds made up-- party-line conservatives will hate Obama's choice even if he chooses a right-leaning moderate, and party-line liberals will love his choice even if it's, surprise!, a right-leaning moderate, so long as one token issue (abortion, gay marriage, or gun control) looks to swing just slightly left.
The rest of us out here in 'Common Sense Land' are living our lives, kissing pigs, and reserving judgment until there is actually something substantial to judge.
Meanwhile, on the FOX Forum today, the headline in bold letters:
"Judge Judy for Supreme Court"
Sigh.
5 comments:
yeah everybody likes to put in their two cents. I thought this article was at least an interesting point of view. Very obviously written by a law professor though...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/04/ifill.court/index.html?iref=newssearch
I read that too and thought it was interesting; it's a different take on the pundit debate, but written by someone actually qualified to comment. Similarly, I found the article linked below to be the absolute best (only one better than so-so, in fact) and most interesting look at Obama's first 100 days in office. While pundits are blah-blahing about select issues which appeal to their audiences, this guy looks purely to history in order to make well-informed, clear comparisons both positive and negative. And he doesn't pretend that 100 days is at all a significant or useful benchmark.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/27/zelizer.hundred.days/index.html
I highly suggest reading William Rehnquist's book The Supreme Court. It's very illuminating as to how politics and public sentiment operate on the court. I also recommend Jan Crawford's book Supreme Conflict. That book was eye opening in just how incredibly political, and in some ways disgusting, the process of choosing, vetting, and putting up a nominee really is. It covers the last 20 years of the court and really does a great job discussing its politics and why, even though the public and politicians make a big deal out of talking points and hot-button issues, the court as a whole and its individual members very rarely reflect the wishes and philosophies of the people that put them there.
A major problem with choosing judges is perspective. Justices are chosen based on their views of current issues but with life appointments, who knows what's coming in 10 years? Who would have thought copyright cases would be so prevalent before the court when Bush selected his nominees to fight for abortion bans and gun rights?
Interesting blog. I think it is important to note that the idea of having federal appeals court judges fill the supreme court vacancies is a very recent idea. For the first time in the court's history, all 9 justices are former federal appeals court judges.
It may be a good idea to move towards the old ways which is to pick people that would do the best job, regardless of their occupations. When Brown v Board was decided, something I think we can all agree was the correct ruling, NONE of the justices were former JUDGES. NONE. Just my two cents.
Very interesting idea, Ambassador, and a very interesting historical tidbit. I'll give that one a good think-- at the very least, we can agree that gathering 9 very similar people from the same professional pool intrinsically limits the number of different opinions and approaches to legal questions that a particular court might take.
I also toy with the idea of 20-year appointments, rather than lifetime ones. Just for the sake of getting new blood in there a little more regularly.
Anyone have a feeling on that?
Post a Comment