2008 Woodie Awards
The Supreme Court and Election '04
With three justices of the nation's highest court potentially on the verge of retirement, this presidential election could prove to be more monumental than the back burner issue the media has let it become.
Alan J. Borsuk/Knight Ridder Newspapers
Issue date: 10/20/04 Section: News
- Page 1 of 3 next >
Two dates to keep in mind as you get ready to vote for president:
Aug. 3, 1994.
Jan. 7, 1972.
The first is the date that Stephen G. Breyer was sworn in as a member of the United States Supreme Court.
More than 10 years later, Breyer, 66, remains the court's junior member, which means the court has gone for the longest period since 1812 to 1823 without a new justice being named. It also means that President Bush has had no opportunity to name anyone to the court since he took office four years ago.
The second is the date when William H. Rehnquist was sworn in. Almost 33 years after he joined the court and more than 18 after becoming chief justice, Rehnquist continues to make a historic imprint on American life. The president who appointed him, Richard Nixon, left office more than three decades ago.
The message from the first date is that the odds are strong that either Bush or Sen. John Kerry, his challenger in the Nov. 2 election, will have one and, fairly likely, several appointments to make to the nine-member court in the next four years.
The message from the second date is that court appointments can turn out to be among the most consequential and long-lasting decisions that a president makes.
The future of the Supreme Court has gotten relatively little attention as an issue in the presidential race. References to it have not been a standard part of the stump speeches or advertising for either Bush or Kerry.
But they both know the issue is out there, and so do people with strong feelings on a wide range of issues - abortion, capital punishment, the rules dealing with national security investigations, criminal justice, election finance rules, civil rights, affirmative action, and freedom of speech vs. pornography, to name a few.
No one on either side of those issues thinks that it would not make a big difference whether Bush or Kerry picked new justices. In a court that is as narrowly divided as it has been stable in its membership, any change could be a big change.
Aug. 3, 1994.
Jan. 7, 1972.
The first is the date that Stephen G. Breyer was sworn in as a member of the United States Supreme Court.
More than 10 years later, Breyer, 66, remains the court's junior member, which means the court has gone for the longest period since 1812 to 1823 without a new justice being named. It also means that President Bush has had no opportunity to name anyone to the court since he took office four years ago.
The second is the date when William H. Rehnquist was sworn in. Almost 33 years after he joined the court and more than 18 after becoming chief justice, Rehnquist continues to make a historic imprint on American life. The president who appointed him, Richard Nixon, left office more than three decades ago.
The message from the first date is that the odds are strong that either Bush or Sen. John Kerry, his challenger in the Nov. 2 election, will have one and, fairly likely, several appointments to make to the nine-member court in the next four years.
The message from the second date is that court appointments can turn out to be among the most consequential and long-lasting decisions that a president makes.
The future of the Supreme Court has gotten relatively little attention as an issue in the presidential race. References to it have not been a standard part of the stump speeches or advertising for either Bush or Kerry.
But they both know the issue is out there, and so do people with strong feelings on a wide range of issues - abortion, capital punishment, the rules dealing with national security investigations, criminal justice, election finance rules, civil rights, affirmative action, and freedom of speech vs. pornography, to name a few.
No one on either side of those issues thinks that it would not make a big difference whether Bush or Kerry picked new justices. In a court that is as narrowly divided as it has been stable in its membership, any change could be a big change.