Justice and Attrition

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, known as one of the most liberal members of the Supreme Court, announced his retirement on Friday, effective this summer.

The man has been on this earth for nearly 90 years at this point (born April 20, 1920) and on the Supreme Court since 1975.

Liberals say this will be an opportunity for Obama to appoint an openly liberal Justice without controversy. Conservatives bemoan further perversion of the only major branch of federal government their political philosophy still has control over. It would appear, then, that the liberal hopefuls are wrong.

The Supreme Court will remain conservative-dominated for some time. George W. Bush used the great opportunity to appoint John Roberts as Supreme Court Chief Justice, adding a huge conservative tint to the Court for a very long time. The Supreme Court has always been one of the biggest ways for a president to leave a lasting and politically influential legacy, as Justices cannot be dismissed short of impeachment and leave the Court only through retirement or death (either of which Justices do only after decades on the bench). Currently, the Court is split 4/4 conservative, with Justice Kennedy the supposed swing vote (who, in reality, votes conservative more often than he does liberal). 

It appears, however, that the Obama White House does not want another big fight so near to November elections and shortly after the politically costly health care bill. He still has much to accomplish before the November elections and requires all the influence he can retain in order to advance his ambitious agenda. He will most likely name someone relatively uncontroversial and the GOP will lack solid grounds on which to filibuster; if the GOP were to filibuster, they would then undeniably appear obstructionist. Republicans will sit on the sidelines and watch as the Democrats vote someone onto the bench and hold their breath that that Justice does not prove to have some profound and obscene ideological bent after finally gaining an irrevocable seat on the nation’s highest court (think Justice Scalia, only liberal). In that regard, there is still hope for balance in the Court.

But Obama’s apparent decision not to present a controversial and highly ideological candidate, even when it would only maintain the Court’s status quo, would present an important point about the Obama presidency: realism, not idealism. In the health care bill, the public option was cut and Obama signed the bill into law regardless. Obama is no Jimmy Carter with head in the clouds and arms around trees. Instead, he follows the tradition of Lincoln, who did what he could with the limited political resources afforded him to pursue his goals for a better American society.