When I was in grade school, my friends and I barely knew the Supreme Court of the United States existed. That was a topic for high-school civics, or maybe eighth-grade—we were too interested in the Man from Uncle and the half-man from Vulcan to care who sat on the bench in the highest court of the land.
I suspect that's still true for grade-school kids. But I believe my own parents would have had equal difficulty in naming the Chief Justice of that pre-Brown v. Board of Education era. (Even now, you know the name Earl Warren—would you know who Fred Vinson was?) I doubt the same could be said of many sixth-graders' folks today. Not in an age when figurines of the SCOTUS justices are offered on eBay.
Earlier this month, Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft met with Mark Noonan of Blogs for Bush on MSNBC's Connected Coast to Coast to discuss the best choices for Justice Sandra Day O'Connors' replacement. (O'Connors had just announced her plans for retirement.) While they were polite on-screen, their comments on-line are a better reflection of the entrenched positions:
TalkLeft: "PFAW lists these as the rights that may be in jeopardy if a consensus candidate is not selected: Privacy Rights, Civil Rights and Discrimination, Church-State Separation, Environmental Protection, Workers' Rights and Consumer Protection, Campaign Finance Reform."
Blogs for Bush: "This, in the end, isn't about Roberts or Bush judicial nominations; it is about defending our system of government from leftwing attempts to destroy it."
These lines are scratched pretty deep in the sand. But why should the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice be a partisan issue at all? Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice clarifies the motivations of both left- and right-leaning commenters with a look at the recent nuanced Ten Commandments decision. Joe points out that the age and current makeup of the court potentially make President Bush "one of the most influential Presidents in history" as he replaces justices who retire (or expire).
A new majority, voting in the wake of several Supreme Court vacancies and new appointments, may see things a bit differently. That's why both the right and left are gearing up for a no-holds-barred political donnybrook in which it's not entirely unlikely that the "nuclear option" on judicial filibusters comes back from the compromise grave.
Since the Supreme Court was established in 1789, 27 of the 150 people nominated to sit as a justice on the Supreme Court—18 percent—have failed to reach Senate confirmation. The first nominee to be rejected by the Senate was John Rutledge in 1795.
Article comments
1 - Phillip Winn
This is a great, well-researched post. Very nice, thanks!
2 - Ernesto
Reasoned, thoughtful and courteous... In a politics and government blog post in America in 2005? Nicely done. And you're right, we should -- no matter which side, or middle ground between them, we've staked out -- care about this issue.
3 - DrPat
A belated thanks for the kind words from you both - I will have a similar item for the first Weekly BlogScan after the drought by (I hope!) Friday evening!