The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : Republicans eye U.S. Supreme Court

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Jul 08, 2005

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

Republicans eye U.S. Supreme Court

Sidney Blumenthal

With Sandra Day O'Conner's retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Republican counter-revolution sees the chance of a lifetime.

EVER SINCE Franklin D. Roosevelt breached the conservative fortress of the United States Supreme Court, Republicans have dreamed of restoration. Every Republican President attempted to fill the Court with judges who would stall, overcome and even reverse change in the law and in American society. President Eisenhower felt that appointing Earl Warren as Chief Justice was the "biggest damn-fool mistake I ever made." Warren became the leader of liberal jurisprudence, using the law to advance social equality and rights.

President Nixon attempted to pack the court with two southern segregationists who were rejected by the Senate. His choice for Chief Justice, Warren Burger, as conservative as he was, disappointed him and he took to calling him "a dumb Swede." At last, he selected William Rehnquist, a judge who had personally intimidated blacks and Hispanics from voting at polling places and written a memo in favour of segregation.

Rehnquist's consistent conservatism made him President Reagan's natural choice for Chief Justice. Reagan, too, hoped to pack the court with justices who would play well with Rehnquist. He appointed Antonin Scalia, even further to the right than Rehnquist, and Robert Bork, perhaps even to Scalia's right, a dyspeptic reactionary rejected by the Democratic Senate. And Reagan named Sandra Day O'Connor, gaining credit for appointing the first woman, who also happened to be a conservative former State Senator from Arizona, such a close friend of fellow Arizonan Rehnquist that they had once dated.

President George Bush Sr. believed he was filling the court with traditional conservatives, but played two wild cards. David Souter has aligned himself with the moderates and liberals. Clarence Thomas has been consumed with a bottomless ideological fervour fed by rage and resentment; he appears not to have recovered from his confirmation hearing, where he was accused of sexual harassment, which he decried as a "hi-tech lynching." With only two out of nine justices appointed by a Democratic President, the Republican right still considered the court a bastion of betrayal and temple of the Left. Ms. O'Connor often turned out to be the swing vote in decisions going five to four against the conservatives. She is a classic literal conservative who believes that tradition and precedent have their own claims. She is small-bore, rests on evidence and case law, while Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas veered erratically in hot ideological pursuit of the "original understanding" of the constitution as they divined it.

Conservative frustration at their inability to remake the country through Republican domination of the Supreme Court has risen exponentially during Ms. O'Connor's ascendance. The Federalist Society, a tightly knit group of conservative lawyers created during the Reagan period, now operates as a controlling network throughout the Bush administration. There is simply not a single presidential appointee in a position of legal responsibility who is not a card-carrying member. Among them, the regnant doctrine is called the "constitution in exile" — a belief that the true constitution has been suppressed since Roosevelt and can be restored by the uniform appointment of "originalists" to the court.

With Ms. O'Connor's retirement, the Republican counter-revolution sees the opportunity of a lifetime to shift the court once and for all. While the fate of abortion has aroused the most controversy, national security will undoubtedly occupy the court in making new law even more. A host of new questions are unresolved. What power does the President have to keep information secret? What is the extent of executive privilege as applied to war powers? Should free speech be infringed when national security is supposedly at risk? What is the President's power to detain? Can due process be suspended? What is the president's power to torture?

Indeed, the notion of torture is alive in the executive branch. Mr. Bush's lawyers, in the office of legal counsel of the Justice Department, have concluded that the President "enjoys complete discretion" and any limitation on his power to torture is unconstitutional.

The spirit animating the Bush administration and the conservatives on the court is the illusion of omnipotence. It is the opposite of that of Justice John Paul Stevens (a Republican appointed by President Ford, who has recently expressed his pride in doing so). In his dissent last year in Rumsfeld v Padilla, Mr. Stevens argued that an American citizen could not be detained without due process. "Even more important than the method of selecting the people's rulers and their successors," he wrote, "is the character of the constraints imposed on the executive by the rule of law."

- Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005

(Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to President Clinton, is author of The Clinton Wars.)

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

Tiger Thackeray and his wounds

Putting the trial back on course

Captivity has only firmed up her resolve

Ensuring food safety in the GM age

Republicans eye U.S. Supreme Court

Condemnable

Stand united

Thank you, BJP

Conscience & corruption

Distasteful

`G-8 should continue to engage with India'