How much of a difference will it make to the Supreme Court whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney wins the 2012 presidential election? This will depend, of course, on which, if any, of the current Justices step down in the next four years and on whether the president elected in 2012 is successful in filling those vacancies with the kind of nominee(s) he wants.
At the outset, I want to put aside four possible scenarios: (1) Romney is elected and gets no nominations; (2) Obama is re-elected and gets no nominations; (3) Romney is elected and gets to replace Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts, and/or Alito; (4) Obama is re-elected and gets to replace Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and/or Kagan. These scenarios are uninteresting, because they will not bring about any significant change in the ideological makeup of the Court.
The more interesting question is, what happens if Romney is elected and gets to replace, say, the oldest "liberal" Justice (Ginsburg) or if Obama is elected and gets to replace the oldest "conservative" Justice (Scalia)? In such circumstances, Romney would presumably nominate someone similar to the most recent Republican appointee (Alito), and Obama would likely nominate someone similar to the most recent Democratic nominee (Kagan).
We therefore have two scenarios: if Obama is elected Kagan2 replaces Scalia, and if Romney is elected Alito2 replaces Ginsburg. How would these changes affect the future of constitutional law?
Before going any further, I should note that I am using the terms "conservative" and "liberal" rather loosely. In fact, as several scholars have demonstrated, relative to all Justices who have served in the past seventy-five years, the recent "conservative" Justices (especially Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito) have been very conservative. Indeed, they are the five most conservative Justices to serve on the Supreme Court in three-quarters of a century.
By contrast, the "liberal" Justices in recent years (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) have been only moderately liberal. They are nowhere near as liberal as Justices like Brennan, Warren, Marshall, and Douglas. They have not been nearly as extreme in their liberalism as recent conservative Justices have been extreme in their conservatism.
Moreover, the two so-called "swing Justices" in recent years (O'Connor and Kennedy) have in fact been quite conservative, though not as extreme in their conservativism as Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito.
In the rest of this essay I will therefore refer to the "very conservative" Justices (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito), the "moderately conservative" swing Justices (O'Connor and Kennedy), and the "moderately liberal" Justices (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan).
Returning now to the possible impact of the 2012 election on the Supreme Court, perhaps the best way to address that question is to look back over the Court's performance since 2000 to see whether any important cases would have been decided differently if Kagan2 had been on the Court instead of Scalia or Alito2 had been on the Court instead of Ginsburg.
To get a handle on this question, I asked several colleagues (without telling them why I was asking) to identify for me the most important constitutional decisions since 2000. They came up with a list of eighteen cases, ranging across the a broad spectrum of issues involving, for example, the 2000 presidential election, gun control, voter disenfranchisement, affirmative action, abortion, habeas corpus, due process for terrorist suspects, takings of private property, the death penalty, campaign finance reform, the freedom of religion, the rights of gays and lesbians, and the Commerce Clause.
For the lawyers among you, the eighteen cases are, in chronological order, United States v. Morrison (2000) Bush v. Gore (2000), Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), Lockyer v. Andrade (2003), Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), Roper v. Simmons (2005), McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union (2005), Kelo v. City of New London (2005), Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No.1 (2007), Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008), Boumediene v. Bush, (2008), District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2009), and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012).
How did the thirteen Justices who participated in these eighteen decisions vote? The moderate liberal Justices voted for the more liberal position ninety-seven percent of the time (seventy of seventy-two votes). The very conservative justices voted for the conservative position ninety-eight percent of the time (fifty-nine of sixty votes). This shows just how polarized the Justices are. The all-important swing Justices cast nineteen of their twenty-nine votes in line with the very conservative Justices. That is, they joined the very conservative Justices two-thirds of the time. The very conservative Justices were in the majority in nine of the cases and the moderate liberals were in the majority in nine of the cases.
With this information, and re-counting votes, we can reasonably infer that if Kagan2 had been on the Court since 2000 instead of Scalia, the moderate liberals would have won eight of the nine cases they lost and seventeen of the eighteen cases. On the other hand, if Alito2 had been on the Court instead of Ginsburg, the very conservative justices would have won seven of the nine cases they lost and sixteen of the eighteen cases.
In sum, then, we can reasonably conclude that given the current makeup of the Supreme Court a change in the ideology of only one Justice will have a profound impact on the course of constitutional law. Let me say it again for emphasis: Had Kagan2 been on the Court in these years instead of Scalia, the moderate liberals would have won seventeen of the eighteen cases, and if Alito2 had been on the Court instead of Ginsburg, the conservatives would have won sixteen of the eighteen cases.
There is no reason to think that the Court's decisions in the future will not be similarly determined by the replacement of a moderately liberal Justice with a very conservative one or the replacement of a very conservative Justice with a moderately liberal one. The implications for such issues as abortion, same-sex marriage, the establishment of religion, affirmative action, the rights of women, voting rights, congressional authority, the death penalty, gun control, and criminal procedure are dramatic.The stakes in the 2010 election for the future direction of the Supreme Court are, in short, are incredibly high.
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
If President wins reelection and the Democrats retain the Senate the first order of Senate business should be to change Senate rules to limit the use holds and filibusters to obstruct the President's appointment power. The Senate Republicans have proven that they would rather see the Court empty than to allow a change which would move the Court to the left. There is also no question that were Mr.Romney to win and Republicans take the Senate, they would not hesitate to change the rules to their favor.
The repatriation of the taxes and penalties on the $22 trillion in untaxed cash lying around the world in Swiss, Cayman Island, etc. tax havens by the filthy rich. And that's just the cash.
It balloons to $35 trillion when the castles, real estate, and $100 million yachts are added in.
Just as with the Great Depression before this one, the 1% moved their assets--what they didn't already have in land which is the ultimate goal of ownership during any time of redistribution--offshore to the hidey holes and safe places that were created for them to use in times just like these that they themselves create!
And they did it all Before the crash, just as the 400 families did in 1929. No coincidence.
Repatriation will only occur when the bottom falls out for real--Roubini and a few others are guessing this Spring--then they will bring that money back with a vengeance and buy up the rest of the country, as every thing gets privatized, at fire sale prices.
When the SCOTUS is divided into factions, it cannot help but exponentially influence the division of the nation. When the Court is essentially neutral with moderates, common sense prevails tempered with the good of the nation as its first and foremost priority.
I, for one, am not ready or happy with the idea that ANY justice is tight or even friendly with the likes of the Koch brothers, arguably the two most dangerous and evil politics influencing men in this nation today nor am I happy with the OBVIOUS distortion of reason to assign CORPORATIONs the benefits of 'person' under the US Codex.
That corruption and corruptive minds are hard at work in what is supposedly the sancrosanct branch of our Federal Government, the 'watchdog' of our other branches of government and the guardian the Principles Of The Constitution Of The United States Of America scares the living bejeesuz out of me! I am sure that I'm not alone.
This issue should be reason enough to VOTE! But if it has an (R) next to the name, VOTE for ANYBODY ELSE!
Conservative and liberal are smoke screens hiding the issue of who is going to run this nation. Votes concerning monopoly, corporate rights and privileges, unrestrained economic power and so on will decide our future. I am not certain that most of the present members of the Supreme court have allegiance other than to the privleged few. That is the evidence.
Obama: Freedoms of personhood and moral rights to live your right the way you want with little restriction. Unions will protect you where available, and businesses will be watched like hawks;PARTICUARLY those that have us by the short hairs and are too big to fail.
Take everything in the aforementioned statements and reverse them. That is Romney/Ryan/AynR.
why would the goptea tell anybody the truth< unless they are rich??? Love the rich just don't understand why they hate! and pretend they are christains and are against the poor! FAKES, FAKES!
Women rights!
Voting rights!
Campaign spending laws!
Immigration laws!
Legality of DOMA!
The list goes on and on...
The problem economy, budget deficit, Wall Street/Banking reform, are important issues that will last a few years.
But the direction of the Supreme Court could be decided in the next 4 years and effect us for the next 20 to 30yrs.
The question is clear, do you want a Right Conservative Supreme Court with a guaranteed majority of Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, +1?
Or as close to a balanced Supreme Court with the current Right and 4 Moderate justices?
www.simonbau.blog.com
www.simonbau.blog.com