Three of the four national daily news papers have touched on a subject I wrote about a few weeks ago. The New York Times and USA Today discuss in two editorials the importance of the Presidential election on the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the Washington Post clearly dissects the Court demographics to help explain exactly what is at stake. Details on the flip side.
The Washington Post story should be prerequisite for every voter casting a ballot – so please read before continuing…
Good. Now that you understand the dynamics of the old and aging justices, you can properly understand the urgency.
The Times editorial is comparatively weaker in its stance on this issue when compared to the USA editorial. The Times reiterates its belief that “Since several justices could depart in the next four years, this could be the most important election for the court in many decades.” Echoing their comments on September 20 that, “Under Mr. McCain, if a liberal justice or two or three steps down, we may see a very different America.” I think its fairly benign behavior for the NYT, personally.
However, the editorial board of USA Today has taken a surprisingly strong attitude towards who they see being the better steward for the Supreme Court. They take issue with two of McCain’s standards of nominating justices in the mold of President Bush’s appointees: 1) McCain said he would nominate those “who have a proven record of strict interpretation of the Constitution.” 2) And he’s on the record saying, “One of our greatest problems in America today is justices that legislate from the bench, activist judges.”
USA Today rebutted: “…those two mantras have served as conservative code for selecting judges who would favor their views on curbing access to abortion, protecting business against lawsuits and regulation, allowing government-prescribed prayer in school or limiting judicial review of the powers of the White House or the Defense Department.” They go on to advocate more debate time towards the issue and hope the two can get “beyond sloganeering and into substance.”
I can safely agree with these, and numerous editorials to come, that this election will be historic, if for no other reason than the Supreme Court. But I rather like the tinge of the USA Today editorial and would love to see this be a central topic during one of the next debates. T-minus 23 days…
