(by Lynn Vincent, WorldMag.com) – Not yet a year into his first U.S. Senate term but eyeballing the Oval Office, Sen. Barack Obama in 2005 found himself with a rare opportunity: to weigh in on the nomination of a chief justice of the Supreme Court. It was a national moment, one that had occurred just 10 times since the year 1900, the most recent when Obama was only 15 years old.
It was also Obama’s first chance to reveal his views on the high court’s role. And, as he had with his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, Obama made an audacious debut: “There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge [John] Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land,” Obama said. “Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view.”
Roberts, who then sat on the D.C. Court of Appeals, had demonstrated “adherence to precedence,” Obama said, “a certain modesty in reading statutes and constitutional text, a respect for procedural regularity, and an impartiality in presiding over the adversarial system.”
And that was the problem.
In 95 percent of cases, Obama said, a conservative justice like Antonin Scalia and one like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal, would use “adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction” and arrive at the same verdict. In the other 5 percent, following case law and the Constitution would only get a justice so far, according to Obama.
It is no exaggeration to say that on judicial philosophy, Obama and his Republican presidential rival, John McCain, are like North and South Poles-as far apart as you can get.
McCain, a strict constitutional constructionist, believes the “role of judges is not to impose their own view as to the best policy choices for society but to faithfully and accurately determine the policy choices already made by the people and embodied in the law,” his campaign website reads.
Obama believes the polar opposite. “What matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult,” Obama said in his statement on the Roberts nomination. “In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.”
The Democratic candidate’s view of justice “completely displaces the dispassionate model, in which judges take an oath not to have any partiality, no matter the status of the litigant,” said Wendy Long, legal counsel to the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network. “Obama is saying Lady Justice should rip off her blindfold and show ’empathy’ for certain kinds of litigants before the court. That’s the opposite of the American ideal of impartial justice.”
Northwestern University law professor Steve Calabresi agrees: “It’s a completely political vision of judging.”
Also political has been Obama’s record on judicial confirmation: In September 2005, he joined only 22 other senators, all Democrats, in voting against the confirmation of John Roberts. He led the charge in opposing the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nomination of Judge Leslie Southwick, a moderate, widely praised jurist and Iraq War veteran. He opposed the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, and other Bush nominees whom the American Bar Association found “well-qualified.”
By contrast, McCain voted to confirm Clinton Supreme Court nominees Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg. “Why?” McCain said in a May 2008 speech at Wake Forest University in North Carolina. “For the simple reason that the nominees were qualified, and it would have been petty, and partisan, and disingenuous to insist otherwise. Those nominees represented the considered judgment of the president of the United States. And under our Constitution, it is the president’s call to make.”
On key Supreme Court decisions, Obama and McCain have come down on opposite sides: For example, in the 2008 Boumedienne decision, the high court granted terror-war detainees held at Guantanamo Bay the right to challenge their detentions in federal court. McCain, himself a former prisoner of war, called the ruling “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” Obama praised the decision to grant habeas corpus rights to enemy combatants.
In 2007, when the court upheld the federal partial-birth abortion ban in Gonzales v. Carhart, Obama said the ruling “signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient.”
McCain called the decision “a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary.”
Like a dime balanced on its edge, the current Supreme Court could fall either way on abortion. With four conservative votes (Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas) and four reliably liberal ones (Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, and Souter), Justice Anthony Kennedy has often proved the swing vote. On partial-birth abortion, Roberts leaned conservative, but on the rest of the abortion issue, he is in some ways a cipher. In a first Obama term what’s likely is that he would replace the two oldest members of the court-the reliably liberal John Paul Stevens, 88, and Ruth Bader Ginsberg, 75. However, a two-term Obama presidency could shift the court to the left in two ways.
First, the Illinois senator has indicated he will appoint justices in the mold of Ginsburg, who supports abortion until the last term of pregnancy. Second, Obama has pledged that his first act as president will be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would enshrine elective abortion in law and undo every state restriction of abortion. If conservatives challenge FOCA in federal court and lose, the effect would be that of an Über-Roe, brushing aside even the right of states to regulate abortion.
While Supreme Court appointments are critical in this election, some argue that more hinges on the next president’s power to make lifetime appointments to the lower federal bench. On the judicial food chain just below the high court are 12 federal courts of appeal, each with jurisdiction over a specific geographical region. These are the courts of last resort for more than 99 percent of all federal cases, issuing decisions in about 50,000 cases annually, while the Supreme Court issues only about 80.
“These courts are very balanced right now,” Calabresi said. “Some have a one-judge conservative majority and others a one-judge liberal majority. If Obama wins, I think it is fair to say that he could . . . flip us from having a kind of muddled, moderately-to-the-left legal system to having a decidedly left-wing legal system.”
Copyright ©2008 WORLD Magazine, November 1, 2008. Reprinted here October 28th with permission from World Magazine. Visit the website at www.WorldMag.com.
1. a) What is Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain’s view on the role of judges?
b) How does Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama’s view differ from that of Sen. McCain?
2. How did Senators Obama and McCain differ on key Supreme Court decisions in Boumedienne and Gonzales v. Carhart?
3. How are the Supreme Court justices divided philosophically?
4. Should he be elected and serve two terms, in what two ways could Senator Obama shift the Supreme Court to the left?
5. What judicial appointments made by the next president do some consider more important than those of the Supreme Court? Why?
6. Do you agree with the following statement: “Rather than scrutinizing judicial nominees based on their perceived political leanings, the next president should appoint judges who apply the law regardless of their own policy preferences”? Explain your answer.
NOTE: Because six members of the Court will be age 69 or older when the next president is inaugurated, it’s likely that multiple vacancies will occur during the next administration. This will create a rare opportunity for the next president to alter the direction of the High Court for the next several decades. It’s crucial, therefore, to have a president who understands the judiciary’s proper role. As Ronald Reagan once noted, “[The Founders] knew that the courts, like the Constitution itself, must not be liberal or conservative.” For Reagan and for the Founders, judges were to be selected based on their ability to put political preferences aside and interpret the Constitution and laws based on their original meaning. Rather than scrutinizing judicial nominees based on their perceived political leanings, the next president should appoint judges who apply the law regardless of their own policy preferences. (from “Misunderstanding the Role of Judges” by Deborah O’Malley)
On the Role of Judges
Judges are like umpires in baseball or referees in football or basketball. Their role is to see that the rules of court procedures are followed by both sides. Like the ump, they call ’em as they see ’em, according to the facts and law-without regard to which side is popular (no home field advantage), without regard to who is “favored,” without regard for what the spectators want, and without regard to whether the judge agrees with the law. (from the American Bar Asociation)
“The role of a judge is to be a neutral interpreter of already established law, not legislator of new law or social policy. A judge can have his or her own opinions, even strong ones, and still read the law neutrally. Fundamentally, judges are expected to not bring their personal politics and philosophies to the bench. Judges are expected to read the law in its clear intent and apply it without regard to result. Changing the law should be left to the people and their legislators.” Sean Rushton, Committee for Justice Executive Director, from the WashingtonPost.com.
“One of the big confusions in the…Senate fight over the confirmation of judicial nominees is that this is an issue about ‘liberal’ judges versus ‘conservative’ judges. The vastly more important issue is whether people who go into court should expect their cases to be decided on the basis of the law or on the basis of the particular judge’s own philosophy…Liberals have rooted for judicial activism because this activism has favored liberal causes and liberal views on such issues as abortion, the death penalty, gay marriage, and racial quotas. But activism can be used by any judge for any purpose.” Thomas Sowell, Hoover Institution
Read more about Sen. McCain’s judicial philosophy on his “Issues” page at JohnMcCain.com.
Search for Sen. Obama’s judicial philosophy on his “Issues” page at BarackObama.com.
NOTE: Sen. Obama does not provide anything on this topic. But he did say the following in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on May 8, 2008: What you’re looking for is somebody who is going to apply the law where it’s clear. Now, there’s going to be those 5 percent of cases or 1 percent of cases where the law isn’t clear. And the judge then has to bring in his or her own perspectives, his ethics, his or her moral bearings. And, in those circumstances, what I do want is a judge who’s sympathetic enough to those who are on the outside, those who are vulnerable, those who are powerless, those who can’t have access to political power, and, as a consequence, can’t protect themselves from being – from being dealt with sometimes unfairly, then the courts become a refuge for judges.”
Ed Whelen at nro.com examines Sen. Obama’s remarks on judicial appointments:
Sen. Obama first tries to minimize for the general public the importance of who picks Supreme Court justices. After Blitzer helpfully assures the audience that Obama “know[s] a lot about the Supreme Court,” Obama asserts-in the context of discussing the Supreme Court-that “95 percent of the time, the law is so clear, that it’s just a matter of applying the law.” A bit later, he states that “cases where the law isn’t clear” are “5 percent of cases or 1 percent of cases.” As Obama ought to know, the unanimity rate on the Supreme Court is nowhere near 95%. According to the Harvard Law Review’s statistics for the past three terms, cases with dissents accounted for 64.4% (2006 term), 45.7% (2005 term), and 62.0% (2004 term) of all cases. Indeed, last term, cases dividing 5-4 accounted for over a third of all cases, and the three justices that Obama cited as justices he likes-Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter-agreed … only 61%, 60%, and 63% of the time, respectively.