Friday
Nov 21st

Center for Equal Opportunity

Home arrow Our Focus Areas arrow Linda Chavez Weekly Columns arrow Picking Judges
Picking Judges PDF Print E-mail
Written by Linda Chavez   
Friday, 30 May 2008
ImageIf you ask Americans what issues matter most to them in choosing a president, the candidate's judicial philosophy is not likely to make it into the top 10. But a president's power to nominate judges is, in fact, one of his most powerful tools -- and often leaves a legacy that lasts far longer than any policy initiative.

President Dwight Eisenhower was no liberal activist, but his appointment of Earl Warren as chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically shifted the nation leftward for decades on everything from criminal justice to separation of church and state to legislative reapportionment. Similarly, President Ronald Reagan was far more successful in reshaping the courts than in reducing the size of government. So it's important to know how each of the current candidates will go about picking judges when one of them becomes president.

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are graduates of Ivy League law schools, Harvard and Yale respectively, and Obama taught constitutional law for a decade. Both approach the Constitution as a "living document," which they believe must constantly be interpreted anew depending on changing circumstances, mores, and values. The literal meaning of the words themselves are no more important in their eyes than the judge's interpretation of what is right and just. Thus, the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law without regard to race or color can be interpreted to permit discrimination against whites if it benefits blacks or Hispanics because, as a group, the latter have faced discrimination in the past and remain, on average, economically disadvantaged.

Given this philosophy it's no wonder that Barack Obama set out his criteria for picking judges this way. "We need somebody who's got the heart ... the empathy to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old. And that's going to be the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges." When Obama voted against Justice Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, he said it was because Alito's record showed "extraordinarily consistent support for the powerful against the powerless." In other words, a judge's role should be to decide which party should prevail on the basis of some abstract notion of fairness.

Now, this might strike some people as a good thing -- though I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone should have to go to law school or have any familiarity with legal principles and precedents in order to become a judge if compassion is the chief criterion on which cases should be decided.

Hillary Clinton's list was a little more substantive than Obama's. She told attendees to a 2007 Planned Parenthood convention that she would pick judges who "understand the role of precedent," by which she meant Roe v. Wade -- though, apparently, no decision after it that rolled back an unlimited right to abortion. But she also threw in the phrase "well-qualified judges," which, at least, acknowledged that she would require something more than a kind heart in making her selections.

Ironically, the only candidate whose primary concern is the law is the one candidate who isn't a lawyer: John McCain. He says he wants "jurists of the highest caliber, who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." Perhaps it takes the humility of one who hasn't gone to law school to hold the law in such high esteem. More likely, it's respect for the democratic process by which the people choose lawmakers. In McCain's view, it's the role of the Legislature -- made up of the people's elected representatives -- to write laws. If the people don't like the laws their representatives make, they can pick new legislators, but neither the people nor legislators should rely on judges to rewrite those laws for them.

It's impossible to predict a future president's judicial picks, but it's an almost certain bet that a President Obama (or Clinton) would choose judges who share their expansive view of judicial power while a President McCain would choose more humble judges who understand the limits of that power. What remains is for the voters to decide how much power they are willing to turn over to unelected men and women with lifetime tenure -- and pick their president accordingly.

Linda Chavez is the author of "An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal." To find out more about Linda Chavez, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.





 
hotline.jpg

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WATCH
Your Anti-Discrimination Hotline


Newsletter Sign-up

Support CEO

Also By Linda Chavez

Purchase

Advertisement

Linda Chavez's Blog

The blog of Commentary Magazine.
  • A Cause Greater than Himself
    To the end, John McCain was the patriot. I have never heard a concession speech as eloquent or gracious as the one he gave.  He is clearly a man at peace with himself.    There is almost nothing Barack Obama could say in victory that will match McCain’s selfless grace in...
  • Hard Times in Colorado
    As if the national picture were not dismal enough for conservatives, we’ve taken a beating on several fronts in Colorado. The Colorado Civil Rights Initiative appears to have gone down to defeat?the first time voters have rejected a ban on racial preferences in any state?as did two initiatives aimed at reining in...
  • Ayers At The Table
    The main reason that the McCain campaign has failed to get any traction on its “palling around with terrorists” line tying Obama to Bill Ayers is that it seems like ancient history to many voters.  Obama has repeatedly reminded everyone that he was only 8 years old when Ayers was...
  • Hillary
    She’s making the case for Obama, but not all that passionately or convincingly.  She also virtually rejected a Cabinet post–a silly question from Wolf Blitzer.  Oddly, however, one of the reasons she gives for remaining in the Senate is that Dems can’t afford to “lose” a senator, like that would...
  • Last Words
    McCain rambled a bit.  Didn’t do as well as he did in the give and take.  Obama was also less focused than usual.  It’s almost as if they didn’t know they were going to have to give closing statements.  Obama asked for votes, McCain didn’t; too bad.  McCain looked more engaged...