Home › Opinion › Opinion Columnists
Goodman: High court hangs in political balance
STORY TOOLS
- E-mail story
- Comments
- iPod friendly
- Printer friendly
- News alerts
- Subscribe to the paper
- Submit a news tip
More Opinion Columnists
- Goodman: 'New generation' is a gray-haired bunch
- Rutten: On Proposition 8, the bullying continues
- Sowell: Protesters demanding the right to win
SHARE THIS STORY [?]
I really hate to bring it up. We already have two branches of our national government in full-scale meltdown. The president looks like a guy pleading before the parole board for early release. The Congress makes "dysfunctional" sound like a compliment.
But there is the third branch also in dire need of a rescue operation. Oyez, oyez, or should I say oy vey. I give you the Supreme Court.
When the court opens Monday, it will look like an oasis of calm in the capital. There are no neon-bright cases on the docket this term. Indeed, my personal favorite is the case of the "fleeting expletives," a suit brought against - and made for - Fox News, asking whether the FCC ban on dirty words covers the occasional Paris Hilton outburst.
But even the court's routine cases will wrestle with personal injury suits, job discrimination, sexual harassment and the environment. The not-so-fleeting fact is that the court ultimately touches every life. And so I come reluctantly to my quadrennial and usually futile plea to consider the court when you get into the presidential voting booth.
Most Americans have some guilty, civics-class understanding that the Supreme Court hangs in the electoral balance. More than 85 percent tell pollsters that the court is either very or somewhat important in how they cast their vote for president. But the court rarely rises to the top of the voting issues.
In support of my plea, take this pop quiz. What are the three longest lasting legacies of the Gerald Ford administration - and the Betty Ford Clinic doesn't count. The answer? John Paul Stevens, John Paul Stevens, John Paul Stevens - 88 years old and still on the bench. (OK, Dick Cheney was Ford's chief of staff, but let's not go there.)
George W. Bush's shadow will hover over the country long after he's gone, in the shape of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. In just three years and counting, the Roberts court has chilled desegregation efforts, allowed the first abortion ban with no exception for a woman's health, made it harder to claim employment discrimination, and easier to mix church and state.
In the cold world of actuarial tables, the next president is certain to have one choice and probably more. Candidates for retirement are Stevens, the 75-year-old Ruth Ginsburg and the homesick David Souter. That's three of the four moderate and liberal justices on a bench that has made an art of 5-4 decisions.
You do the math. If Obama is elected, the court will stay pretty much the way it is. If McCain is elected, Katie bar the door.
McCain, who plays a maverick on TV, promised the court to the right wing. He told the women of "The View": "I want people who interpret the Constitution of the United States the way our founding fathers envisioned for them to do so." This prompted Whoopi Goldberg to ask if she should worry about being returned to slavery.
Of course, slavery is not up for review and not every case comes with an ideological amicus brief. But you can count on one more Scalia, one more Alito, one more Roberts to limit or strike down the federal power for things such as cleaning the air and safeguarding workers. And need I remind you, McCain is out to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Pro-choice groups have been crying wolf for so long that it's hard to believe that the wolf is actually at the door. Or at least the border of South Dakota. There a full-tilt abortion ban on the November ballot with high-hurdle exceptions only for rape, incest and the life of a woman is pointed directly at Roe and targeted to arrive at the Supreme Court in time to greet a new justice. If what happens in South Dakota doesn't stay in South Dakota, a woman's right will depend on whether she has enough gas to drive to the next, or the next, or the next state.
Finally, if you want to know which candidate just plain values the Supreme Court, try checking out their first appointments, the vice presidents. Joe Biden has spent a career on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sarah Palin went blank when asked to talk about a single court case beside Roe v. Wade.
Ah yes, remember when only a few Cassandras warned that subprime mortgages and credit derivatives would affect everyday American life? We'll be paying for the next Supreme Court even longer. That's two branches of government down, folks, and one to go.
Ellen Goodman writes for The Boston Globe. Her e-mail address is ellengoodman@globe.com.




Posted by bk334 on October 3, 2008 at 8:02 a.m.
Ellen Goodman,
"You do the math. If Obama is elected, the court will stay pretty much the way it is."
That's pretty optimistic.
Barak Obama admitted to not being
"that influential" on the Right side of the aisle during the debate on the bailout for Wall Street, but he's running as a "Uniter".
And Obama has voted with the Liberals more than McCain has voted with Bush.
All the people(outside of his family) who Obama
references as having a positive impact on his upbringing are either agitators or racists.
Those who mentored him in politics or who he partnered with to build his political career are either agitators and racists or supported agitators and racists.
How could an Obama Supreme Court even remotely resemble today's Court?
Posted by Zebrareader on October 3, 2008 at 9:36 a.m.
It is so sad that a woman's right to choice what happens to her body is so dependent on an election and politics; but Goodman is right. I will never understand why there are so many people out there who want to decide for their neighbor who they marry and what they can do with their body and what they can do in their bedroom but make no mistake they are there.
There are times I just want to go and go in my house and close the door, but that is not possible. In order for this country to remain free each of us must fight for our rights and the rights of our neighbors from those who would take them away for whatever reason.
Many of those who are trying to take away those rights think they have all of the best motives in the world, but they are still doing the "devil's work" by trying to deprive someone or some group of their civil rights. The rest of us have to fight on the side of the angels and resist even if we are not members of those groups.
Posted by thehermit on October 3, 2008 at 4:57 p.m.
It is very naive to think that everyone has a "right" to do what ever they want...your Society will decide what your rights are.
Posted by Zebrareader on October 3, 2008 at 10:20 p.m.
in response to thehermit
You wrote: "It is very naive to think that everyone has a "right" to do what ever they want...your Society will decide what your rights are."
That is correct. However, the Supreme Court finally made a ruling that was the first in the world that reversed centuries of law that gave women the right to control all of her body. That remarkable decision is in danger of being changed and all of that injustice will return. Those who are fighting to repeal this decision have no idea what it is they are doing and it is a shame.
Yes, you are right in that society decides what rights each of us has; but I don't think it is naive to hope, to fight for rights that I think each of us has no matter what sex, race or sexual orientation each of us belong to.
Posted by bk334 on October 6, 2008 at 6:33 p.m.
in response to Zebrareader
"Those who are fighting to repeal this decision have no idea what it is they are doing and it is a shame."
Correction, Zebrareader-
Those who are advocating (fighting) for abortions have admitted they don't know what it is they’re doing.
The "One" and presumed head of the Democratic Party has admitted, in spite of advocating and voting for all abortions, even late term abortions, that knowing when life begins is above his pay grade.
You’re all just guessing that your cause isn’t infanticide, that you and your doctor aren’t aiding murderers.
It’s one thing to have a national debate and a vote on the issue, but you Liberals don’t
even want to have a national debate.
(Requires free registration.)
We're happy to offer a home for your discussions, but please be respectful and follow the house rules:
Stay on topic - Life's too short to waste.
Be nice - If you want your comment gems to survive, you won't defame, threaten or be abusive to other readers or the subjects of our stories. Victims have feelings too. Out of concern for them, we may not allow comments on certain stories.
Keep it clean - This is a public forum, open to civil adults and children who do not appreciate your vulgarities or obscenities.
You are deputized - Police these comment threads. If you see a comment that violates the rules, click "Suggest removal" to flag that comment for review by our staff.
There are consequences - Rule violators may be banned from commenting.
Click here for our full user agreement.
If you wish to participate in off topic discussions, please go to the Redding.com Forums.