(I'm going to talk politics today. If that's not what you're here for, here are some cute baby pics to tide you over.)
It is impossible to go to lawschool and not come away with a deep and abiding respect for the Supreme Court and awe for the reach of its power. Right now, everyone is talking about "change," and while I find it ludicrous to suggest that that change is going to come from the right and from the same party who got us into this mess, that's not what I want to talk about. Everyone who knows me, knows that I'm going to vote for Obama, and I don't think I have anything fresh to lend to that discussion. However, in their frenzy to make this about change, experience, and character, the media, the bloggers, and the undecideds are ignoring the nine member elephant in the room.
Did you see the guy at the RNC holding up the "Thank You, Mr. Bush" sign with the picture of John Roberts and Sam Alito? This is what's really at stake here. The average Supreme Court Justice serves for 20+ years. Consider that even the most successful President/Vice-President duo ends its reach at 16 years(A feat that hasn't been accomplished in the last 50 years), and that the president leaves a legacy, not a treatise worth of legal precedent.
The next president will likely get to appoint 2-3 Justices. In recent years, many decisions have been 5-4 decisions. Two of the justices who are most likely to retire, Stevens and Ginsberg are the two staunchest defenders of civil liberties on the bench. They are old. They are tired. They have been hanging on for a democratic president because when they go, the tenor of the court will change. A two judge conservative majority would be huge. A three judge majority would catastrophic and would take us back nearly a century to when civil liberties were narrowly interpreted.
Many of the freedoms we take for granted came out of so-called "Liberal courts." When John McCain says he'll appoint justices who "Won't legislate from the bench," it's pretty clear that he hasn't read many Supreme Court opinions. In every single case, the court is called upon to INTERPRET the law. If the answer was easy, the case wouldn't be before them. What John McCain means is that he'll appoint justices who share his parties views and won't veer off into unwelcome territory. What he's truly doing is giving a code-word gift to the conservative interests who oppose abortion rights, and who want to see a very narrow interpretation of the first 10 amendments (with the exception of the second, which they'd like to find Justices with Hubble telescope capable vision to interpret).
I think many disillusioned souls are considering sitting this one out. Waiting till 2012. Or giving John McCain his "due" because they admire him as a person, or because they think it's time to have our first woman vice-president. And there are many people who when told allowing John McCain to become president will change the face of the Supreme Court say "Who Cares?" Roe v. Wade is passe to many people. Abortion isn't the driving issue for moderate Americans, and many aren't concerned about abortion being criminalized again, even if comes with no exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother (Palin favors this type of absolute ban).
I have news for all those people. Roe v. Wade is the tip of the iceberg. If you hand the future of the Supreme Court to John McCain, you're risking far more than a single decision. You're risking your ability to speak out & protest against your government & corporations. You're risking your rights against corporations, and you're risking an expansion of corporate power. You're risking the overturning of anti-trust and fair-trade decisions. Larger & larger mergers. Fewer rights for consumers. You risk the line between church and state blurring.
You risk the rights of defendants. Many criminal law decisions are decided by the 5-4 margin. Wiretapping. The Patriot Act. Being Held without being charged. Access to a lawyer. Sufficiency of the evidence. Fair trial. Racial profiling. These are the issues that the court deals with every day. They might get 1-2 abortion cases a year, but dozens of criminal law decisions are handed down that affect your daily rights. Not so sure? Hundreds of protesters were arrested at the RNC. Doctors, lawyers, and straight A students were in their mix. Do you want their rights protected? Do you want judges who look at each case individually and weigh mitigating evidence or do you want judges who hand down morality?
For all the GOP talk about "fair and impartial justice," that's the real goal here--judges who hand down their brand of morality. When you make your choice for president, choose very carefully. You're affecting the rights of millions for the next three decades. Do you want to hand control of our courts over to the extreme right? When it's just you and your conscience alone with your ballot remember this: Schools were desegregated by "liberal courts" and Miranda Rights were passed out. Your right to privacy and your freedom of speech were broadened by "liberal" courts. Innocent men were freed from death row by liberal courts, and thanks to liberal courts there are no children in our factories and no spanking in our schools. You are free from sexual harassment thanks to liberal courts and you have rights against unfair housing practices. Thanks to liberal courts, your right to protest abortion, war, climate change, and the president has been upheld. The rights of your state have been protected. Do you really want to risk all that? Do you really want to watch the 2012 convention and see the "Thank You" signs for Scalia, Jr. and Thomas, Jr. waving goodbye to our civil liberties?
