There are many important issues to consider when deciding who is going to get our vote for President — health care policies, ending the war in Iraq, the economy (and, at present, the world’s financial markets). Ending poverty in America, improving our education system, restoring our integrity on the world stage.
But as I felt in 2000 and 2004, the most important thing to consider when deciding which candidate, and which party, to vote for comes down to two words — Supreme Court.
And some names — John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas.
Who gets appointed to the Supreme Court impacts our lives in ways both large and subtle. Every decision the justices make trickles down to change our laws and rights as we know them now — like privacy rights.
Today is the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade. And whether you believe in abortion rights, are against abortion, or take a position that’s more case-by-case, if Roe gets overturned, at some point, it will take a toll on all privacy rights we now enjoy.
It took a long time for the Supreme Court to get around to ruling on matters that fall under that privacy “penumbra” (one of my favorite words from law school) — being able to live where you want, marry who you want, use birth control if you want. Those opinions all led up to Roe.
If we have a court in the next few years that decides to overturn Roe, it’s not that big a leap to suppose that the next privacy cases will be decided in a way that will chip away at those other rights, as well.
So while today is an anniversary of one of the most controversial and important Supreme Court decisions, it’s also a day to think about the presidential race in this context:
What kind of person do you want to be the next appointment to the Supreme Court?
I love Justice John Paul Stevens, but at age 87, there aren’t that many more years he has to give. And the others aren’t spring chickens, either.
Presidents are for four (or eight) years, but a Supreme Court appointment is for a lifetime. We’ve already seen the direction in which Chief Justice Roberts and his very conservative pals are steering the court – opinions with paternalistic language and rulings against women who have clearly been discriminated against that outrageously favor the offending employers.
No candidate wants to be tied to any litmus test about the types of people they will consider for Supreme Court appointments. But I think it’s a safe bet that by listening to candidates’ words and reflecting on their actions and their lives, we can get a good sense of whether they’re more likely to appoint someone like the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist or Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
I like my constitutional rights the way they are right now — or more accurately, the way they were a few years ago — and I’d like to keep them for PunditGirl, as well.
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
It’s a very good point, and one I think most people don’t consider. Add that to my list of stuff to worry about when casting my vote. Oy.
January 22nd, 2008 at 8:20 pm
I’ve noticed that most candidates who support the right to privacy tend to do good work on the other important issues that you mention in the first paragraph, like ending poverty in America. It’s generally the ones who are loudest about “protecting the unborn” trumping the right to privacy/self-determination that also tend to do very little to support them once they are born. Just a thought. Thanks for the great post, as always.
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:42 am
“No candidate wants to be tied to any litmus test about the types of people they will consider for Supreme Court appointments. “
Except Kucinich. When he was asked this question he answered truthfully: (words to this effect)A Kucinich Presidency would include a litmus test to uphold Roe v Wade, but it would also include sex education, birth control, health care, schooling from K-college..we would make abortion legal, but less necessary.
Now that’s a candidate worth voting for – an honest one that actually answers questions! Go to http://www.dennis4president.com and look this up for yourself.
January 25th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Very good point – it will be a crucial reason to vote Democratic in the fall.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Boy you just don’t like the truth being told do you. I challenge you to prove what I posted is wrong.
No never mind it would be pointless because you don’t want to know the truth.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
You want an example of your left leaning judges making laws that they are not allowed. Try this one.
In a 5 to 4 decision, the “left-leaning” Justices of the Court have decided that there is no such thing as private property rights in the United States.
That is Making Laws Instead Of Interpreting Laws which is what the Supreme Courts job is. But no you want to put more of them into power so they can take away more of your rights. Nice.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
oh and if you are wondering that was in 05