home

2008 Elections: Supreme Court is at Stake

Jeffrey Toobin, writing in the New Yorker, explains why 2008 will determine not just our President and congressional officials, but the future of the Supreme Court for the next several decades.

He examines the rulings in the first full term in which Justices Alito and Roberts participated. He notes that the conservative controversial opinions were decided by votes of 5 to 4. And that Justice Stevens is 87 years old and Ruth Gader Ginsberg is 74. But Alito and Roberts are only in their 50's.

Since Souter and Kennedy, all appointed Justices -- Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Roberts, and Alito —- have fulfilled the agenda of the Presidents who appointed them. No surprises.

I agree with Toobin who concludes his excellent article with:

At this moment, the liberals face not only jurisprudential but actuarial peril. Stevens is eighty-seven and Ginsburg seventy-four; Roberts, Thomas, and Alito are in their fifties. The Court, no less than the Presidency, will be on the ballot next November, and a wise electorate will vote accordingly.

< Chicago Mob Trial Begins, Like a Real Sopranos | Supreme Court: Passengers Have 4th Amendment Standing >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Indeed (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 11:31:32 AM EST
    This very subject keeps me up at night sometimes.

    Subjunctive Case Required (none / 0) (#2)
    by JHFarr on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 11:52:43 AM EST
    Sorry, I just can't help myself.

    a wise electorate will vote accordingly

    Should be "would," of course. Won't happen, either. And remember the definition of insanity we were all touting some months ago with regard to administration policy on Iraq?

    Well...


    A Few More (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 12:01:05 PM EST
    Righties on the SC and America will be more like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

    Change the system (none / 0) (#4)
    by Saul on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 04:43:49 PM EST
    The selection process for SC justices in my opinion needs to be overhauled.  I know that the constitution gives the president the right to name his man but I think this process is flawed and prejudice.  Even though the President claims that the appointee will be independent, you will never convince me that that SC justice doesn't have an allegiance for this favor to his president and to the thinking of his political party and their agenda.  A better way would be to alternate the SC choice by party every time there is a vacancy.  I.e. if there is a vacancy under the Bush administration and the last appointment to the SC was a republican Justice then this new appointment has to come from the democratic ranks, even if the president is republican and so on in an alternating manner.  This prevents the president from stacking the court with his people.  Of course this is dreaming.

    Saul (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 08:53:54 AM EST
    Leaving aside the fact that some of our most liberal  justices were appointed by Repubs, the political nature of the appointment is what makes our system unique and functional. Plus, an alternating appointment system ignores the fact that new parties  do happen.

    Parent