This is the final installment of a series discussing the two presidential candidates’ stances on issues directly or indirectly affecting college students and university campuses.
As indicated by the recent revelation of Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s battle with thyroid cancer, the justices on the United States Supreme Court aren’t getting any younger.
The nine-member court is old — only one justice, Clarence Thomas, is younger than 65 years of age, and four justices are older than 70. Two judges, Rehnquist and John Paul Stevens, are 80 or older.
The court has retained the same nine members since President Clinton appointed Stephen Breyer in 1994 — the longest consecutive stretch the same panel has maintained since the early 1800s.
But with age rapidly encroaching, the streak stands to end in the near future, meaning the next president will have the opportunity to steer an ideological shift onto the nation’s highest court.
President George W. Bush and Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry have established different agendas in how they would fill a Supreme Court vacancy. Justices are nominated by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and serve until retirement or death.
Bush supports judges who strictly interpret the Constitution. As articulated in the second presidential debate, he does not have a litmus test when deciding on a nomination but simply seeks judges who do not let personal opinion obscure their judgments.
“We stand for judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law,” Bush said during a campaign stop in Richland Center last week.
Despite Bush’s talk of the Constitution, Kerry alleges the president has pushed a far right-wing agenda in his judicial nominations to lower courts.
“It’s clear, based on his record, that George Bush is trying to appoint the most conservative judges possible to the courts, which is very troubling given that three new judges may be appointed to the Supreme Court soon,” George Twigg, Kerry’s Wisconsin spokesman, said.
As president, Kerry says he would seek good judges irrespective of where they fit ideologically.
The debate over potential court vacancies turns contentious when the issue of abortion is raised. As it stands now, the court is comprised of five conservative judges and four liberal judges, with decisions often falling along ideological lines. Some worry the court is a vote or two away from reversing Roe v. Wade.
Kerry has said he would not appoint a judge who would overturn the landmark 1970s abortion decision, which Twigg said is the “correct interpretation” of the law.
The pro-life Bush has been more vague, simply responding to a question on the subject during the third presidential debate by saying he does not apply a litmus test when appointing judges.
Some analysts contend the result of the Nov. 2 election could accelerate the shakeup in the court’s makeup. They speculate a Kerry win would hasten Rehnquist’s retirement, allowing time for Bush to nominate a new justice before leaving office Jan. 20.
But with the Kerry administration on its way, Senate Democrats would likely filibuster any Bush judicial nomination, according to University of Wisconsin law professor Herbert Kritzer.
Bush could then turn to a recess appointment made when the Senate is out of session, paving the way for a justice to serve a temporary term until confirmed or kicked out by the Senate in 2006.
Regardless of who wins, the Supreme Court is getting older, and with possible vacancies looming, the legality of abortion and other issues potentially hang in the balance.
Kritzer said it is “extremely unlikely” the court will remain unchanged four years from now.
The abortion debate is one Rehnquist understands well. He dissented against the decision in Roe v. Wade as a newly appointed justice on the court in 1972.
