On Friday, March 13, 2009 Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg hinted that there will be a vacancy on the Supreme Court soon. During a question and answer session with law students in Boston Ginsburg commented that the nine Supreme Court justices are only photographed together when a new member is apponted, saying
“We haven’t had any of those for some time, but surely we will soon.”
Although five of the nine justices are at age 70 or older, none has contemplated retirement in public. Given that Ginsburg, a Clinton appointee is battling pancreatic cancer, she is the odds on favorite as the next to be replaced, thus giving President Obama his first opportunity to re-shape the Supreme Court.
Of the nine justices seated on the court, 7 were appointed by Republican administrations. During the last Administration, President Bush appointed two justices, Chief Justice John Roberts, age 54 and Associate Justice Samuel Allito, age 58 His father, "Bush 41", appointed Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the younger members of the court at age 60, and Justice David Souter, age 69. Justice John Paul Stevens, the Senior Associate Justice at 88, is the oldest member of the Court and was appointed by President Ford. Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, ages 73 and 72 respectively, were both Regan appointments. Interestingly, two of the so-called "liberal" judges, Souter and Stevens, were appointed by republican presidents, thus skewing the presumption that judicial appointees will follow party platforms.
Assuming that President Obama will soon have his first opportunity to shape the future of the Supreme Court, it is unlikely that one appointment will result in any significant changes since there will still be a solid conservative bloc (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Allito). The critical "swing" justice is and will continue to be Justice Kennedy who has voted with the "liberals"on gun control, in supporting habeas corpus rights for Guantanamo Bay detainees, in favor of expanding Constitutional rights for sexual orientation, and against the death penalty applied to those who are mentall ill, under the age of 18 or for the rape of a child. Justice Kennedy likewise joined the plurality opionion which re-affirmed though narrowed Roe v. Wade in 1992 (Planned Parenthood v. Casey).
Therefore, unless President Obama has the opportunity to nominate and appoint three Justices, unlikely since the average age of the court is 69, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will undergo any drastic change of judicial philosophy during this Obama administration. Conversely, the appointment of just one additional conservative justice would solidify the conservative voting bloc and present the opportunity for the court to review and reject stare decisis. Of course, Presidents do not always have crystal balls, and justices have been known to surprise their presidents once they enter the court's womb.

3 comments:
I think it's kind of hard to predict what judges will do when they're entrenched in the SC. I hope that when the time comes he'll pick someone who votes according to the law & not politics. All I would like is a SC justice who will write a really short decision!! I get a little bored trying to fit five pages of decision into a one page brief!!!
I'm with you on this one, with only the one opening and unless the 88 year old falls dead of natural causes (forgive my feeble brain on the name anymore) there will be only one named to the Supreme Court during Obama's tenure unless perhaps he is elected for a second term which many have Palin v Obama in 2012. (Now that is a joke and a half)
This could surprise many, including the President when it comes to Roe v. Wade, as whomever is appointed may narrow it even further. As for gay marriages - go for it, they live through the same hell as any man or woman does in a marriage without the same benefits. Sorry if they are allowed to adopt (be it a single parent adoption and the other partner then adopts the child afterward) and I am all for the right to bear arms (athough they should remove the malitia issue from the constitution) -- I doubt if there is any way the Supreme Court is going to waiver from the days of Reinquest and those before him. I see it remaining status quo.
Change doesn't come easy to old institutions such as the Supreme Court and DC's "Men Only" Clubs. (I'm not talking strip joints either)
But when it comes to GB. I've been sitting on a fence on that one since it all became public. I'm really tired of being poked in the ass by the fence too. They need to come to some sort of decision on how to handle that matter in a conditional, constitutional and structured way so that everyone is treated the same way. That ain't gonna be easy.
Happy Easter to you and yours Gin.
Post a Comment