When the U.S. Supreme Court for the third time in four years took the Bush administration to task denying due process of law to Guantanamo Bay Naval Base’s inmates, it underscored a fact that get lost in the partisan and factional emotions swirling around campaign 2008: the court’s composition is likely to be greatly impacted by whichever party wins the general election.
On the Democratic side, some Hillary Clinton supporters are still mad at presumptive nominee Barack Obama and one “mysterious” site for Clinton supporters even directs them to McCain’s website. Conservatives have rallied faster likely GOP candidate John McCain than expected but there are rumblings that some may vote for Libertarian Bob Barr because they agree him and/or to punish the GOP.
But as Dick Polman points out, the Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday underscored what third party candidate Ralph Nader pooh-poohed in 2000: the party that wins will likely have a huge impact on the future make up of the court — ruling on issues of importance to conservatives, liberals, women and other groups. And it’s HIGHLY likely there will be one or more vacancies to fill by the next President:
The 2008 presidential campaign is not just about the war in Iraq, or gas prices, or health care, or flag pins. It’s also about the future direction of the U.S. Supreme Court, and the challenge of balancing national security concerns with fealty to the nation’s democratic principles. Even a cursory glance at the yesterday’s historic court ruling demonstrates why this is so.
Polman takes a look at yesterday’s ruling and the court, then writes:
But here’s where I’m going with this: three of the five judges who comprised the majority are likely to depart the court during the first term of the next president. John Paul Stevens, who was appointed by Republican Gerald Ford, is 88 years old. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appointed by Bill Clinton, is 75 and ailing. And David Souter, appointed by the first President Bush, is a relatively spry 68 but reportedly yearning to retire. They have made it possible for the court to impose constitutional constraints on Bush’s attempts to expand executive power.
If Obama – who voted against the McCain-sponsored 2006 Military Commissions Act – wins the election, he will likely nominate judges in the mold of those departees. McCain, who was effectively slapped down yesterday for creating what Obama called “a legal black hole,” would likely tap jurists who are philosophically in sync with yesterday’s minority (John Roberts, Sam Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas).
Who besides Ralph Nader is still willing to argue that there are no fundamental differences between the two major party candidates?
Conservatives want a certain kind of court. Progressives want a certain kind of court. When they use their vote to punish their own party, or don’t factor in the Court when they weigh how to vote, they could be punishing themselves for decades.
But that never stopped them before.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.