Post by Seany-D on Nov 10, 2004 9:16:51 GMT -5
Supreme power
Originally published Nov 10, 2004
Jules Witcover
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON -- The illness of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist has generated intensive speculation that President Bush may soon be in position to make his first appointment to the Supreme Court.
Indeed, given the advanced ages of other justices, speculation extends to the possibility that he may have the opportunity to make other appointments before the end of his second term, even eventually a majority of the nine-member court.
The subject of Supreme Court appointments is often a subplot in presidential elections, as it was in this one. The out party always raises a warning that dire things will happen to the administration of justice if a judge of this or that temperament or philosophy is named.
Yet the composition of the court is seldom a voting issue in presidential elections, and it was not one in the Bush-Kerry contest. Sen. John Kerry referred to it occasionally from the stump, warning liberal supporters that if Mr. Bush was re-elected, he probably would be positioned to make the court even more conservative than it is now.
The matter is of particular concern to abortion-rights supporters who fear one or more new conservatives on the highest bench could mean a reversal of the Roe vs. Wade decision upholding a woman's right to have an abortion.
That concern has been somewhat diminished by a post-election statement by Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, later softened after conservative protest. Mr. Specter, a longtime defender of abortion rights, is in line to become chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which would consider any Supreme Court nomination.
Mr. Specter first said: "When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe vs. Wade, I think that is unlikely."
Referring to other conservative nominations that have been blocked by Senate Democrats, he added that "the president is well aware of what happened ... and I would expect the president would be mindful of the considerations."
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist quickly expressed confidence that "now that we've gone from 51 [Republican] seats to 55 [as a result of the elections] we will be able to overturn this, what has become customary, [Democratic] filibuster of judicial nominees."
Backing off, Mr. Specter said that "contrary to press accounts, I did not warn the president about anything" and that he would "never apply any litmus test" on abortion. Still, pressure mounted from conservatives to deny Mr. Specter the committee chairmanship.
The prospect of any one president, Republican or Democratic, being able to give lifetime appointments to a majority of the Supreme Court is unsettling, if not dangerous.
There was a time when nominees were selected without as much emphasis on, or attention paid to, their political views as is the case today. Now a prime question raised is the issue of a political litmus test for potential justices.
Legislating the makeup or composition of the Supreme Court is highly controversial stuff, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt learned in 1938 when he tried and failed to pack the court with up to six additional members as a way to salvage certain New Deal legislation.
But the notion of having a president empowered to name a majority of the court, especially during a single term, warrants consideration of some limit by law, such as two or three appointments by any president in one term.
Obviously, any limitations imposed by law should not be undertaken lightly. The 22nd Amendment that limits a president to two terms was ratified in 1951 in reaction to FDR's multiple re-elections, and since has been regretted in both parties. Many Republicans would have liked a chance to give Ronald Reagan a third term and many Democrats even now say they wish Bill Clinton could have run again in 2000, or this year.
But at a time when it has become accepted that a president, rather than Congress, can take a nation to war on his own, many will worry about the wisdom of having him able to remake the nation's highest judicial body on his own.
Jules Witcover writes from The Sun's Washington bureau. His column appears Wednesdays and Fridays.
Originally published Nov 10, 2004
Jules Witcover
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON -- The illness of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist has generated intensive speculation that President Bush may soon be in position to make his first appointment to the Supreme Court.
Indeed, given the advanced ages of other justices, speculation extends to the possibility that he may have the opportunity to make other appointments before the end of his second term, even eventually a majority of the nine-member court.
The subject of Supreme Court appointments is often a subplot in presidential elections, as it was in this one. The out party always raises a warning that dire things will happen to the administration of justice if a judge of this or that temperament or philosophy is named.
Yet the composition of the court is seldom a voting issue in presidential elections, and it was not one in the Bush-Kerry contest. Sen. John Kerry referred to it occasionally from the stump, warning liberal supporters that if Mr. Bush was re-elected, he probably would be positioned to make the court even more conservative than it is now.
The matter is of particular concern to abortion-rights supporters who fear one or more new conservatives on the highest bench could mean a reversal of the Roe vs. Wade decision upholding a woman's right to have an abortion.
That concern has been somewhat diminished by a post-election statement by Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, later softened after conservative protest. Mr. Specter, a longtime defender of abortion rights, is in line to become chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which would consider any Supreme Court nomination.
Mr. Specter first said: "When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe vs. Wade, I think that is unlikely."
Referring to other conservative nominations that have been blocked by Senate Democrats, he added that "the president is well aware of what happened ... and I would expect the president would be mindful of the considerations."
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist quickly expressed confidence that "now that we've gone from 51 [Republican] seats to 55 [as a result of the elections] we will be able to overturn this, what has become customary, [Democratic] filibuster of judicial nominees."
Backing off, Mr. Specter said that "contrary to press accounts, I did not warn the president about anything" and that he would "never apply any litmus test" on abortion. Still, pressure mounted from conservatives to deny Mr. Specter the committee chairmanship.
The prospect of any one president, Republican or Democratic, being able to give lifetime appointments to a majority of the Supreme Court is unsettling, if not dangerous.
There was a time when nominees were selected without as much emphasis on, or attention paid to, their political views as is the case today. Now a prime question raised is the issue of a political litmus test for potential justices.
Legislating the makeup or composition of the Supreme Court is highly controversial stuff, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt learned in 1938 when he tried and failed to pack the court with up to six additional members as a way to salvage certain New Deal legislation.
But the notion of having a president empowered to name a majority of the court, especially during a single term, warrants consideration of some limit by law, such as two or three appointments by any president in one term.
Obviously, any limitations imposed by law should not be undertaken lightly. The 22nd Amendment that limits a president to two terms was ratified in 1951 in reaction to FDR's multiple re-elections, and since has been regretted in both parties. Many Republicans would have liked a chance to give Ronald Reagan a third term and many Democrats even now say they wish Bill Clinton could have run again in 2000, or this year.
But at a time when it has become accepted that a president, rather than Congress, can take a nation to war on his own, many will worry about the wisdom of having him able to remake the nation's highest judicial body on his own.
Jules Witcover writes from The Sun's Washington bureau. His column appears Wednesdays and Fridays.