|
I saw an article today in USA Today suggesting that the legacy of Sandra Day O'Connor, America's first female Supreme Court justice, has been fading since she retired in January 2006 (after a tenure of over two decades). The article mentions that the new Court has "undercut several of her most important rulings on issues such as abortion rights, campaign finance law and government policies intended to help racial minorities." Among other things, the article mentions the following changes in the Court's policies since O'Connor retired and Chief Justice William Rehnquist died:
• Shifted course on abortion rights: The court upheld a federal ban on the abortion procedure opponents call "partial birth" and backed away from a 2000 O'Connor opinion that required an exception in such laws to protect the health of the mother.
• Retreated on integration: The court made it harder for public school districts to assign students to schools outside their neighborhoods to achieve racial diversity. In 2003, O'Connor had cast the swing vote to allow affirmative action in higher education and stressed the importance of racial diversity.
• Altered its approach to campaign-finance law: The court opened the door to corporate and union financing of broadcast ads right before an election. It moved away from a standard O'Connor had crafted to regulate campaign financing and made it harder for Congress to limit donations in elections. In doing so, the justices said campaign finance regulation could undermine free speech.
What interests me the most about this article is the fact that the Supreme Court's political leanings have obviously changed thanks to the justices appointed by President Bush II. While Rehnquist and O'Connor were known to make apolitical decisions on a case-by-case basis, their replacements (John Roberts and Samuel Alito, respectively) are generally considered as members of the Court's "conservative wing". Since when is a legal system, particularly the Supreme Court, allowed to have a "conservative wing?"
It's about time that we start appointing justices based upon their accomplishments rather than their political leanings. Aside from the Presidents Bush, all US Presidents have appointed justices who make highly rational, apolitical decisions. Why do we let it fly when an active member of either political party is allowed to join the Court? Alito, Roberts, and Clarence Thomas (who was appointed by Bush Sr.) are the only current justices who weren't approved by at least 85% of Senators (Alto had 58%, Roberts had 78%, and Thomas had a mere 52%). The other six justices made it in almost unanimously… why is it that the Bushes couldn't do the same thing that Ford, Reagan, Nixon, and Clinton were able to do?
The purpose of the Judicial Branch of the US government is to interpret and enforce the laws. As long as the members of the highest court are affiliated with a political party, how can we possibly guarantee neutrality?
You can see articles right after they're published by visiting the author's blog (click here) or subscribing to his RSS feed (click here).
|
tweet this!
