The Supremes, Stark Raving Naked
Posted Thursday, Dec. 14, 2000, at 12:00 AM ETIf there's been one overarching principle guiding Rehnquist Court jurisprudence it's the centuries-old legal adage: "Not in Front of the Children." Whatever ugliness has arisen over personal ideologies and politics, it's all been papered-over with the liberal use of the adverb "respectfully" to modify the word "dissent." This way the court can maintain the fiction that they all triangulate from a fixed star and that their differences are merely interpretational.
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponNot today. With confirmation that the nine justices' legal opinions firmly track each of their own perfectly punched ballots from last month, the curtain has been yanked aside. And we the children, sneaking downstairs on Christmas morning, discovered daddy—dressed as Santa—burning mom with a cigarette, underneath the mistletoe last night.
Will they get past this? Can we ever be a happy family again? Sure, and here's how: The chief justice should invite us all to join him, the other justices, and clerks at his annual "Christmas Recess" party, which takes place every year around this time. Yes, Virginia, over halfhearted protests from some of the justices and law clerks, the chief's "Christmas Recess" party happens each year. And even though other federal institutions have renamed their events "Holiday Party," at the chief's shindig, law clerks can get tiddly on eggnog and sing Christmas Recess carols, led by the chief justice—as selected from a hymnal distributed ... by the chief justice. I'm cautioned (by clerks without names) that few actual "Jesus songs" are sung, although "White Christmas" and other hymns-by-Jews survive the subintermediate scrutiny, as a Christmas tree presides over the great hall.
We should all be invited to this year's event. At the very least it should be audio-broadcast with sketch artist drawings. It might reassure us that all is forgiven as the justices exchange their Secret Santa gifts, proving that whatever little tiffs they've had over Bush v. Gore are behind them. Justices O'Connor and Rehnquist will probably be swapping gold watches; they can retire now, safe in the knowledge they'll be replaced by Mini-Mes of "strict constructionists" Scalia and Thomas. Like the original Clarence Thomas, they needn't ever speak. They need only shrug and nod. Ginsburg will get a travel mug from the Federalist Society for her newfound reverence for states' rights. And poor Justices Breyer, Stevens, and Souter can play "I Never" late into the night, trying to unearth a federal issue in the per curiam (unsigned) decision in Bush. Justices Kennedy and Scalia will get training stripes for their future chief justice robes.
In his dissent from the majority, Justice Breyer warns that the "appearance of a split decision runs the risk of undermining the public's confidence in the court itself." "That confidence is a public treasure," he continues. "It has been built slowly over many years, some of which were marked by a Civil War and the tragedy of segregation." All week long, pundits have speculated whether the court, in raiding and spending recklessly from its own cache of public trust and confidence, has done irrevocable damage to its own legitimacy. Conservative pundits, and five of the nine justices, believe that the court can withstand a momentary sag in public confidence. Liberals argue that, like Oz's curtain, the illusion of a court that exists above the partisan bickering, can never again be part of the public imagination.
History will probably favor the five in the majority. The court has proven itself to be partisan, political, and cynical before. We forgave them then and let ourselves believe that the next court would be dispassionate and fair. We'll just move the Rehnquist Court over to the space under "Warren" on the "activist judiciary" balance sheet. This decision did not reverse the Florida Supreme Court, it remanded to the Florida court with instructions to do that which is impossible—establish standards for a recount that cannot be done on time. That's not just intellectually dishonest. It's insulting. But we'll believe in the next court. And we'll wait to be fooled again.
Is It More Important for Your Turkey To Be Organic or Local?
Why Gift Cards Are a Terrible Gift
Is Sarah Palin's Approval Rating Really as High as Barack Obama's?
Justice Scalia's Most Eccentric Habits
Adam Lambert's Refreshing Non-Apology on the CBS Early Show
Democrats Have a Lot To Be Thankful For
Reader Comments from The Fray:
All the Court-bashing by liberals is, of course, self-defeating. Liberals have more invested in the Court's reputation than conservatives (who at any rate have been savaging the Court for decades). For that matter, liberals have more invested in the entire government's reputation than conservatives (or libertarians) do. That's why Gore's behavior would have been more harmful to Democrats than to Republicans even had he won. Since he didn't, it's even worse.
Had liberals thought about the big picture, they would have exercised more self-discipline. But then, self-discipline isn't a very important part of liberalism these days.
--Tench Coxe
(To reply, click here.)
The political chess endgame devised by the Republican players was brilliant: They had the most votes in Florida on November 8th. They focused on delaying any attempt to recount votes, and time was on their side. So delay. Impede. Talk about fairness. But, always delay. By December 12th when time ran out for Gore, the Supremes had done nothing more significant than whine, remand, and further delay.
In the end, that delay checkmated Gore. The Bush dishonesty is that he will never be able to admit, in public, that this was the Republican intent from the beginning. So he now begins his term as President absent a mandate, but with his deception translated into political language as a victory. As someone who has observed Bush over the past months, my own question is who will really be running the presidency?
--David
(To reply, click here.)
To David:
The Supreme Court determined the outcome. It is the queen. The voters are the pawns.
--History Guy
(To reply, click here.)
(12/14)