Legalities
Life, Politics and the Law From ABC News Correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg
Jan Crawford Greenburg is a correspondent for ABC News' bureau in Washington DC. She covers politics, the Supreme Court and provides legal analysis for ABC News. She is a graduate of the University of Chicago's law school and is a member of the New York bar.
RECENT POSTS
- Supreme Court Puts Chrysler’s Sale to Fiat on Hold
- White House Contacted Sotomayor Before Souter Announced His Retirement
- Becoming Nominee Sotomayor
- Judge Wood Goes to Washington
- Obama: Fortifying Bush's policies on terror
- The Pitfalls of Politics
- A Stealth Nominee?
- Who's on the Way to the Court: Chart the Course
- A Justice Who Has Juggled
- White House Formalizes Supreme Court Short List
- Tortured Timing
- The Harsh Interrogation Investigation
- Souter's Plans
- Are Southerners More Racist than Northerners?
- FCC Decision, Round One
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
They're Back
October 06, 2008 4:56 PM
The justices returned from their summer break today, and, as always, it felt a whole lot like being back in school after a few carefree months off. You take your assigned seats, whisper hellos to your old pals (Like the new haircut! How was your summer?), and greet the newcomers (hey, welcome Adam Liptak!).
Then the bell rings, and it’s back to cracking open the books (or briefs) and thinking about Big Issues. That is, until you’re sternly reprimanded, after your nice summer off, for forgetting the rules. (Right! No chewing gum in Court!).
The First Monday in October is weirdly exciting. The Chief Justice convenes the new term (well, ok, he just says the new term is convened, but it still feels a little dramatic). The courtroom is filled. Today, even Justice O'Connor was there. (She watches. They decide.) Everyone seems to sit up a little straighter, take notes a bit more neatly and pay attention to the lesson more closely.
But doggone it, if I didn’t keep getting distracted during the first big argument today, when the justices were debating whether cigarette companies can be held liable for promoting “light” and “low tar” cigarettes. It’s an interesting case that again has the Court weighing whether federal law preempts certain lawsuits.
But I kept thinking about the future—and by that, I mean the future of the Court. The chairs soon could shuffle. The Court, on next year’s First Monday in October, could look significantly different.
The next president is expected to get at least one nomination to the Court, and possibly up to three. Five justices are 70 or older. John Paul Stevens is 88. With the Court so closely divided on a host of controversial issues—from abortion and affirmative action to presidential power---that means the next president, with a single nomination, could have a profound impact on the direction of the Court for a generation.
As George Bush knows, Supreme Court nominations often are a President’s greatest and most lasting legacy. Bush’s appointees, John Roberts and Sam Alito, will be shaping American law long after Bush has left Washington. The next president can undo many of Bush’s programs and policies, but he won’t change the Court until a justice decides it’s time to go—and even then, he may not change it much.
Of course, President McCain likely would mean a more dramatic shift for the Court, at least in the short-term, than President Obama. That’s because the three most likely contenders for retirement are all liberal: Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter. Replacing them with a conservative would turn the Court further to the Right on key issues like race, the environment, religion and the War on Terror. Just as significant, it would minimize the role often played more moderate conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy.
President Obama, on the other hand, would probably just be preserving a liberal place card. Unless, of course, a conservative justice bows out, giving him an historic opportunity of his own to turn the Court's direction.
Today, the justices showed no signs of slowing down. Stevens was fully engaged, and even delivered a legal jab to former solicitor general Ted Olson, the lawyer for the tobacco companies. Ginsburg and Souter were active in their questioning.
But change is in the air. Or, at the very least, on the first day back from vacation, anticipation that it will be here before we know it--in one form or another, and perhaps not at all what we expect.
After all, who would have thought back on the First Monday in October 2004 that Sandra Day O'Connor--then the most powerful justice, today as active and vibrant as ever--would announce her retirement a mere nine months later?
October 6, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (5)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
What I read is: McCain will bring change, Obama will NOT bring change to the court.
See below cited from the article:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course, President McCain likely would mean a more dramatic shift for the Court, at least in the short-term, than President Obama. That’s because the three most likely contenders for retirement are all liberal: Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter. Replacing them with a conservative would turn the Court to the Left on key issues like race, the environment, religion and the War on Terror. Just as significant, it would minimize the role often played more moderate conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy.
President Obama, on the other hand, would probably just be preserving a liberal place card.
Posted by: golfgirlusa | Oct 6, 2008 5:20:32 PM
AMERICANS HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER TO CONTINUE HAVING THE WORLD LOOK UP TO US OR WE BECOME LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE..
OBAMA'S ULTRALIBERALISM IS THAT WE BECOME LIKE EUROPE OR THIRD WORLD..
JUST TO BE LIKE ..
THE WORLD THINMKLS HE IS A FOOL AND THAT IS WHY THEY LIKE HIM
HE WOULD DOWNGRADE AMERICA TO THEIR LEVEL..WE ARE NOT COMMUNISTS, DONT CHANGE OUR CONSTITUTION BY ALLOWING ULTRA LIBERALS IN THE COURT.
SAY NO TO OBAMAM AND HIS MAOIST PHILOSOPHY.
Posted by: TJ, THE CLINTONITE | Oct 6, 2008 5:33:16 PM
The attorneys for Obama and the DNC today filed a motion asking for a protective order stopping "all discovery” in the Berg verses Obama lawsuit pending the Court's decision on defendant's motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This is the first time in American history a “naturalized” citizen and/or illegal alien has been allowed to campaign for the Office of President of the United States. The FEC and Democratic National Committee have refused to verify and furnish Obama’s eligibility. All that has been provided is a copy of a “certification of birth” which can be easily made up by anyone. Mr. Obama has NOT and does NOT plan to give any evidence to the American public. Obama is now throwing the American public “under the bus”.
Posted by: Ann | Oct 6, 2008 5:59:32 PM
Bush is conservative on social issues only. In so many other ways he's radical and unpredictable. McCain too has shown a streak of rapid and reckless decision-making. Obama's vote on FISA reauthorization and immunity for telecoms demonstrates a centrist instinct that belies by his liberal voting record in the Senate. But consider that for much of that time he was voting on Bush administration legislation. Throughout his campaign Obama has demonstrated restraint and a willingness to meet in the middle to find agreement.
Posted by: Neil | Oct 6, 2008 9:40:54 PM
"Replacing them with a conservative would turn the Court further to the Right on key issues like race, the environment, religion and the War on Terror." You are correct that the "War on Terror" is a "key issue", inasmuch as it is a monstrous fraud that has justified fascistic domestic repression, military expansion, war of aggression and resource theft for the past seven years.
Also interesting that you mention "former solicitor general Ted Olson, the lawyer for the tobacco companies". Olson was also the lawyer who worked for the Bush/Cheney "selection" in 2000. A man like that would never lie about the events of 9/11, would he?
Posted by: ariel | Oct 7, 2008 12:11:30 PM
Post a comment
