short-sighted
I recently finished Jan Crawford Greenburg's latest book, Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court, and I have to say, it was remarkably even-handed given its topic. Details from the personal notes and memos of nine current and former Supreme Court justices provide some insight into how the Court runs; a revealing interview with Justice O'Connor adds some extra drama, explaining her early retirement and how we came to have two SCOTUS vacancies at the same time. It was all very personal, and not terribly political. I would recommend it to anyone who finds the judicial branch somewhat mysterious and wants to understand how it affects the lives of average people.
There were two things that came up repeatedly in Supreme Conflict, and neither was particularly encouraging. The first item was how small the political network is in and around Washington. The book covers SCOTUS appointments from the Reagan Administration through Samuel Alito, but during those thirty years, no more than a dozen or so candidates are considered by other side of the American political spectrum. It is clear that if you were not able to land an appointment to the 4th circuit federal appeals court (which requires knowing and having worked with one or more of the president's advisors), the cards are stacked against you and your dreams of serving in the Court. Judges from other appellate courts in other parts of the country are occasionally considered (like the aforementioned Alito), but the vast majority were nominated because top advisors wanted to push their favorites, and said favorites had the opportunity to participate in the Washington, D.C. social network. Geography-based judicial nominations seem incredibly... injudicious... even for politicians.
The second item was how abortion became the primary issue - if not the only issue - that influenced a candidate's support from legislators and the public. No other issue even comes close. In reading the notes and transcripts provided by multiple instances of the executive branch, it is hard to find more than a token concern paid to other issues that the Court might face. Homosexuality, education, property rights, medical marijuana, the Pledge of Allegiance, government surveillance - these things were mentioned, but none was ever a deal breaker. Abortion is the ultimate deal breaker.
I think it's fair to say that putting so much weight on one issue is bound to negatively affect decisions made on other issues. In every case that does not involve abortion, a justice is forced to spend lots of time and mental energy weighing how his opinion in the case may affect current or future abortion-related cases; he may be pressured to make a sub-optimal decision because he is afraid the optimal one may eventually lead to politically unpopular action on the abortion front.
Justices may not face elections or popularity polls, but they certainly face pressure from politicians, friends of the Court, and talking heads who can demonize them as the face of the enemy. Even notoriously independent and aloof justices like Stevens and Thomas must be affected the pressure. No one wants to go into the history books because of a decision that was really a side effect. That's a lot of stress to put on a person who already has pages and pages of case history and legal arguments to absorb.
Finally, I know that if I were appealing a decision that had a major impact on my life and revolved around, say, privacy, I wouldn't want to be short-changed because Justice Bob was worried about the implications to the pro-X crowd. Despite its prominence in the national discussion over Court rulings, abortion-related cases don't make their way onto the docket very often, and yet these potential cases have a significant affect on topics as disparate as gay rights and terrorism. I'm sure this is a fun twist for the lawyers arguing before the Court.
Despite these common themes of cronyism and questionable priorities, the book was great and I enjoyed the opportunity to blog about one of my favorite subjects: consitutional law. Did you like how I mixed in issues that were "critical" to both liberals and conservatives and used variables in order to hide my own opinions? Aren't corporate blogs fun?
Update: I shouldn't have tried to write this post in such a short period of time. I've cleaned up some of the minor problems, but I still wish I had let it simmer a while longer.
Labels: books, culture, narcissism
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home