July 5, 2005

Trying to control what the next Justice will have to say.

Todd Purdum has this piece in the NYT about the way Supreme Court Justices have disappointed the Presidents who chose them. The classic quotes of the miffed Presidents are there: "I could carve out of a banana a judge with more backbone than that," etc.

And here's a quote from Chief Justice Rehnquist:
[T]he court "is an institution far more dominated by centrifugal forces, pushing towards individuality and independence, than it is by centripetal forces pulling for hierarchical ordering and institutional unity."
Funny, since the front page of yesterday's NYT had Linda Greenhouse talking about the way there is a strong centripetal force on the Court (which I agreed with). But Greenhouse's centripetal force metaphor referred to the Justices' tendency to move to the ideological center, while Rehnquist used that metaphor to mean adherence to the ideology the President perceived in the judge at the time of appointment. So there is no real disagreement here. The Justices acting independently -- affected by the Chief's "centrifugal force" -- are breaking away from the ideology they brought to the Court and, if they move to the center, this Rehnquistian "centifugal" move is the Greenhousian "centripetal" move.

Strange how we picture a person's ideology as a thing existing in space and subject to the principles of physics!

Do you ever look critically at the diagram of politics you've got stored in your head that you use all the time without thinking much about? How about that mental picture of the Court? It's pretty simplistic, isn't it?

I wish Presidents would choose judges who are deep and serious thinkers with enough dimension and substance that we wouldn't be able to form such a simple picture. I wish the opinions were written by people whose work I would be interested in reading if it had no grand authoritative power to it.

2 comments:

Bruce Hayden said...

The problem though with wanting to read SC cases without having to (as Ann does, given what she teaches) is that, at least for me, the currently sitting justice I most like to read is Thomas - because of his passion. More than any other justice, I see him speaking a lot more from the heart.

But this is one of the places where he is (arguably) so condemned - that instead of counting the angels on the head of a pin, as legal scholors believe he should, he ignores precedent in making his heated appeals.

vnjagvet said...

I agree with your last paragraph. Alas that is not what either end of the political spectrum wants. Each end wants "agreement dammit". No ifs, ands or buts.

To me, anyone who fills the bill for either end of the spectrum is disqualified for intellectual fossilization.