Views > November 22, 2004
Judicial Chainsaw Massacre
By Stephen J. Fortunato Jr.
Plagiarizing from his defeated rival, on November 3 George W. Bush promised the nation “a season of hope.” For those who view the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal judiciary as protectors of minorities from unlawful discrimination and as guarantors of civil liberties and constitutional rights, the reality that lies ahead is more aptly described by Rimbaud: “a season in hell.”
Bush is poised, chainsaw in hand, to redefine the meaning of justice and fairness through the nominations he will be making to the federal bench. With Chief Justice William Rehnquist ailing, his first appointment is probably not far away, and Justice Antonin Scalia is the likely replacement. Bush repeatedly has praised Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas for embodying the judicial philosophy he admires. The short translation of these endorsements is that Bush wants judges who will not locate in the Constitution any rights not expressly enumerated, despite the Ninth Amendment’s declaration that the lack of an exhaustive list “shall not be construed to deny or disparage [other rights] retained by the people.”
Given the age and health of the Supreme Court members, Bush will likely appoint three or four justices during his second term. But because the Supreme Court considers only 90 or so cases a year that go to full decision, he will do his greatest damage in the lower courts. The federal judiciary of about 800 judges turns over 20 to 25 percent every four years. Bush already has appointed 22 percent of all sitting federal judges, and by the end of his second term, close to 50 percent of all federal judges could thank him for their positions.
Bush screens his appointments primarily for their right-wing ideology in matters of civil rights, civil liberties and criminal law. A study published in July by law professors Robert Carp, Kenneth Manning and Ronald Stidham in the respected legal professional journal Judicature evaluates the decisions of Bush appointees and compares them to those made by other federal judges dating back to the Johnson administration. Not surprisingly, the George W. Bush judges were rivaled only by those of Ronald Reagan, siding 65 percent of the time with the government against claims by individuals seeking to vindicate or expand constitutional rights. This was as true for Bush’s female and minority appointees as it was for his white ones.
Bush’s ideological litmus test compounds a longstanding problem with federal judicial nominations: a lack of relevant experience. For instance, in the domain of criminal law, according to annual studies published by The Harvard Law Review, 20 percent to 25 percent of the Supreme Court’s full opinions address criminal matters in each term, yet no present member of the High Court ever defended a person accused of a felony during their pre-judicial careers. On the other hand, while only 5 or 6 percent of the Court’s opinions involved appeals of administrative decisions, four of the Court’s members—Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and Breyer have backgrounds in the area of government regulation. Overall, the federal bench is no different, with 40 percent of the judges drawn from the ranks of prosecutors and many others from corporate law firms.
Many groups are in jeopardy, but perhaps those most in peril are young African-American males. It is not hard to make the argument that the U.S. criminal justice system is systemically racist, given African-Americans account for nearly 45 percent of more than 2 million in jail or prison, while comprising only 12 percent of the general population. Six of 10 juveniles presently confined are minority youth. This state of events is decimating communities of color, and Bush’s appointments, driven by right-wing ideology and lacking any experience working on behalf of people from poor communities, will only exacerbate this problem.
The most that progressives can hope for is that a stealth moderate will slip through the vetting process. Some shrewd candidates have been positioning themselves already. Take Professor Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School, a prolific author often described as a moderate, or even a “liberal.” Writing in the fall issue of Dissent, he pandered to the Bush administration: “By historical standards, the Bush administration has acted with considerable restraint and with commendable respect for political liberty. It has not attempted to restrict speech or the democratic process in any way.” As I said: a season in hell.
More information about Stephen J. Fortunato Jr.
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments
-
extended discussion >>>Continued...
Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 61 posts.
Member Login
Also by Stephen J. Fortunato Jr.
- Supreme Court OKs Racial Profiling
- Supreme Court Inc.
The Roberts Court unravels a generation of progress - And Now The Justice Department Eight
- Judging Harriet Miers
Democrats must rise up and challenge conservative claptrap about "activist judges" - Bad on the Basics
John Roberts' affability masks a callous indifference to some of our most fundamental rights - Origin of the Specious
and get a
free, signed copy
of David Sirota's New York Times bestseller The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington
Popular Discussions
- Acknowledging the Race Chasm
51 posts since May 9 08 - Atheism’s Unholy Trinity
50 posts since May 20 08 - ‘The Kosovo Dilemma’ goes astray
The 1999 NATO-led bombing against Serbia was a humanitarian intervention, not a U.S. and European power grab
22 posts since Jun 25 08 - The American Left: What Progressives Can Learn from Obama
16 posts since Jun 24 08 - New Jewish Lobby Counters Neocons
13 posts since May 15 08
© 2004 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
