Jewish World Review Oct. 19, 2004 / 4 Mar-Cheshvan, 5765

Terry Eastland

JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Justices only seem to be immortal | In the second debate, an issue of obvious importance finally came up, in a question put to President Bush: "If there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who do you choose and why?" The question was smartly asked, not least because it began with that word "if."

There hasn't been a Supreme Court vacancy since Justice Harry Blackmun stepped down in 1994. The court's vacancy drought, if it extends through 2006, will surpass the longest, recorded 180 years ago when a smaller court went almost 12 years with the same cast.

There are reasons to think that vacancies will occur soon. The three oldest justices are the chief, William Rehnquist, who just turned 80, John Paul Stevens, 84, and Sandra Day O'Connor, 74. They also have served the longest — 33, 29 and 23 years, respectively. Only 26 (out of 108 justices) served as many as 23 years, 14 as many as 29 years, and eight as many as 33 years.

Justices are not immortal. Yet justices today do tend to live longer than their predecessors and also to stay longer on the job. Modern medicine helps explain the tendency. But the power today's justices wield — expanded well beyond the framers' intentions — also may be very hard for them to give up.

Donate to JWR

Partly on account of its assertiveness (not to mention its hubris) and partly on account of the growth of government generally, the court now plays a far more central role in the life of the country. Recall Bush vs. Gore, which merely settled a contested presidential election. Or consider from this June the trio of cases in which the court, rejecting administration arguments, ruled that "enemy combatants" detained in the war on terrorism are entitled to challenge their classification in court.

It is thus not inconceivable that the composition of the court will remain the same during the next presidential term, just as it has during the current one, and as it did during the one before that, Bill Clinton's second. Yet it is not the possibility of zero vacancies that interests voters in this or any presidential election, nor should it. The prudent assumption always is that one or more vacancies will occur and that the president will through the exercise of his nominating power shift to some extent the philosophical center of the court.

In answering "who do you choose and why," Mr. Bush made clear (as he did in 2000) his interest in picking justices with a certain judicial philosophy. He spoke of "strict interpretation," a term generally understood to mean a conservative approach to judging.

The remarkable answer came from Mr. Kerry, who, notwithstanding his own declarations that he would support "only pro-choice judges for the Supreme Court," seemed to deny an interest in judicial philosophy. A "good judicial decision," he said, is one that when "you're reading [it] . . . you can't tell if it's written by a ... liberal or a conservative. ... You just know you're reading a good judicial decision."

For Mr. Kerry, it appears that judging is a merely technical undertaking and that it has nothing to do with ideas. But of course it does. It matters, for example, how a judge goes about interpreting a constitutional provision or a federal statute, and there are sharp philosophical differences among the nine justices as to how those tasks are to be carried out.

Mr. Kerry pointed out that Mr. Bush has long held up Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — judicial conservatives both — as models of the kind of jurists he'd appoint. But Mr. Kerry declined to state what he has elsewhere made clear — that he would choose judicial liberals.

The second-debate question thus demands a follow-up: "Mr. Kerry, please tell us which justices you most admire, and why their philosophy of judging has your support?"

Every weekday publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

JWR contributor Terry Eastland is is publisher of The Weekly Standard.Comment by clicking here.

09/15/04: Second Bush term could bring radical tax change
08/30/04: To appeal to conservatives, add some nuance to compassion
07/28/04: How many more 'adverse' court decisions will it take before the case for an amendment to protect traditional marriage becomes compelling?
07/15/04: Edwards wasn't chosen just for his hair
06/23/04: Special counsel law: Reform gone awry
06/14/04: Reagan's influence is apparent in federal judiciary
05/25/04: What do Bush's sagging approval ratings really mean for November?
05/17/04: We must make distinctions between Berg, Abu Ghraib
05/11/04: College costs rise with students' expectations
04/30/04: A country's declining birthrate into oblivion
04/26/04: Dems escalate the judicial war
04/09/04: Bush was right to permit Rice to testify on 9-11
03/25/04: Colleges doing away with their racially exclusive programs
03/02/04: What does a conservative beat mean for The New York Times?
12/31/03: America is right to press for religious freedom worldwide
10/22/03: Case involving pledge should be easy for justices to decide
10/15/03: Dean places political considerations ahead of national security
08/28/03: Colleges creating policies that discourage intellectual exchange
08/14/03: Progressive reform could end up limiting government
07/30/03: Congressman, please consult Miss Manners
07/23/03:Words reveal much about Bush: Maybe there is a reason he won't retract sentence
07/08/03: Justices also said affirmative action must end
06/25/03: Court's law school ruling isn't persuasive
06/24/03: Whatever the Lynch story, everyone wants it
06/18/03: A judge shows he can set aside his strong views
06/04/03: Boston church becomes politically important again
05/28/03: YWCA names culture warrior as its new head
05/23/03: Washington steps in to help teach history
05/13/03: It may take another election to change filibuster rules
05/07/03: Paige works to improve education from inside out
04/30/03: Iraqis have choice to make regarding religious freedom
04/16/03: Is it acceptable for an education secretary to state a personal preference for religious schooling?
04/08/03: University officials must put academics ahead of athletics
04/02/03: Support for our soldiers means support for their orders
03/27/03: 'Free Iraqi Forces' underscore Bush's sincerity
03/18/03: Dems misunderstand judge's job
03/13/03: Justices show right restraint in ruling on anti-crime measures
03/05/03: America's imperial intentions
02/25/03: The weakness of Dems' stated reason for their filibuster makes you wonder whether it is the real reason
02/19/03: Administration fine-tunes religious rights in public education
02/12/03: France and Germany need to be reminded of the necessity of a strong, even predominant America
02/06/03: Judiciary's 'balance' -- or lack of it -- is our doing
01/29/03: The child who almost wasn't
01/21/03: President decides to punt on affirmative action case
01/14/03: Bush's faith has influenced his conduct in public office
01/07/03: Dems need ideas, not more microphones
12/17/02: Gray Lady should learn that times have changed
12/10/02: Will High Court be guilty of activism?
12/03/02: The missing facts in news accounts of Saudi Princess Haifa's putative 'charity'
11/26/02: Americans don't have to be worried about Big Brother
11/19/02: Texas' reputation for flamboyance may be revised
11/11/02: Bush now can repair confirmation system
11/05/02: Dems shouldn't believe too strongly in history
10/30/02: Snipers had lots of motives
10/23/02: No one should be shut out of marketplace of ideas
10/15/02: Open hearings that could imperil the nation
10/08/02: Debating the clear and present danger
10/01/02: A great awakening in China?
09/25/02: Abortion, again? The settled but still unsettling law of Roe v. Wade
09/18/02: A relevant presidency--and irrelevant U.N?
09/10/02: Ashcroft's obtuse judicial statement
09/04/02: The Education Gadfly stings again
08/28/02: So then let the president declare war
08/21/02: Will Bush finally 'fix' affirmative action once and for all?
08/06/02: President must take up cause of Egyptian democracy warrior
07/31/02: With each war, civil liberties are curtailed less

© 2004, Terry Eastland