Political punditry has it that the next President will probably have the opportunity to appoint between two and four new Supreme Court Justices. Whether this fact will have an effect on the election is less clear. Abortion rights supporters and opponents, state's rights supporters and opponents, civil rights supporters and opponents - all are convinced that the judicial appointments of the "other side's" candidate will mean the end of civilization as we know it. Those groups are likely to promote the issue heavily; the question is whether citizens who aren't passionate about such issues will pay attention.
More "objective" court watchers like to point to past President's judicial appointments that didn't turn out quite the way the President expected. (I use the word "objective" loosely, as it's my opinion that "objectivity" is a function of whose ox is getting gored.) David Souter is frequently held up as an example of this: Nominated by President Bush, and "expected" to be conservative, Souter has turned out to be one of the consistently liberal members of the court. It is far less often that we are reminded that most of President Reagan's appointees have voted fairly consistently as "conservatives" since their appointments, and President Clinton's appointees have been pretty firmly ensconced on the "liberal" wing of the court. Clearly, a President's ideological leanings do matter in the majority of Supreme Court appointments.
| ZZZPOLLBEGIN1710233749POLLENDZZZ |
Many feminists (including myself) are concerned about the future of a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. (An excellent analysis of this concern has been prepared by Pro-Choice Guide Margaret Sykes.) However, I believe the conservative tilt toward states' rights by the Court is equally important. Indeed, the two issues are intertwined: If Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will likely be done under the guise of returning the issue to the states. Many conservatives, including Presidential candidate George W. Bush, have already made the point that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided - not because of the moral implications of abortion, but because they believe that the right to make laws regarding abortions - including laws prohibiting them - belongs to the states.
The four oldest Justices (Stevens, Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Ginsburg) are at or near "traditional" retirement age. In addition to that, three of those justices (Stevens, O'Connor and Ginsburg) have had battles with cancer. Abortion-rights supporters are quick to note that all three of those Justices are part of the pro-choice majority on the current Supreme Court. However, O'Connor's vote has also been the deciding factor in several narrowly decided "states' rights" cases which have severely limited federal power to enforce federal laws in recent years.
In recent rulings, the conservative majority has been consistently activist in the area of "states' rights." States have been increasingly protected from Federal laws, most often by a 5-4 ruling. Justice O'Connor has ruled for state immunity from federal laws in most of these cases, the notable exception being the recently decided Stenberg v. Carhart, which struck down Nebraska's "partial-birth" abortion ban, Yet, in her separate concurring opinion, O'Connor made it clear that she does, in general, consider such restrictions a matter of states' rights.