THE VERDICT
Dahlia Lithwick
Put Palin on the Supreme Court
Washington's old-boy problem hardly ends at the Oval Office.
If there is a lesson to be learned about Sarah Palin's dizzying political ascent, it's that America really loathes Washington insiders, especially those tasked with working inside Washington. The surest way to affront the American voter is to offer up a candidate with an Ivy League education, experience inside the Beltway and D.C. connections. If Palin stands for anything, it's that when it comes to both the presidency and Pixar movies, nothing good ever happens until the Stranger Comes to Town. But while our contempt for the Washington life touches everyone in the legislative and executive branches, it's become almost a job requirement at the Supreme Court. This third branch of government is wildly overrepresented by insider lawyers with identical résumés. You can swap out one Ivy League law school for another, but beyond that, the bench is ever more populated by folks like Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito—brilliant men whose chief job experience consisted of work for the executive branch followed by a stint on the federal bench. It's not that these are bad qualities in a jurist. It's just that a court that once included governors and senators and former football stars is now overrun by an elite cadre of mostly male, mostly East Coast lawyers. If ever there were a branch of government crying out for varying life experiences, it's the Supreme Court. And if any branch of government is in need of a mother of five who likes shooting wolves from helicopters, the court is it.
It's not just that Palin would be great for the ever more stuffy Supreme Court. Closer scrutiny suggests that the Supreme Court might actually be a better fit for Palin. Consider her interests: Palin has little background in national security, health care, immigration or foreign policy. Her main concerns have been the hot-button social issues that cannot be settled by fiat in the executive branch. Palin wants to do away with abortion and strongly opposes gay marriage. She supports teaching creationism in schools and believes in promoting religious free expression. These are constitutional issues on which Republican presidents have been thwarted for decades. Since the Supreme Court has often been the lone defender of the rights of women, gay couples and atheists, installing a Sarah Palin there would do far more to undo these things than getting her into the White House.
The office of the vice president may be the place in which Palin's status as the pre-eminent D.C. outsider would be more a hindrance than a help. Whatever your views of Washington insiders, clearly some knowledge of the ins and outs of the Congress, the various agencies, NGOs, and lobbyists, is helpful in a vice president. This kind of granular understanding of how D.C. actually works made both Al Gore and Dick Cheney such powerful vice presidents. Failure to understand it wrecked the political careers of Harriet Miers and Alberto Gonzales.
Palin is well aware of the awesome power of the courts. That's why, when the Alaska Supreme Court struck down a controversial abortion restriction last year by a 3-2 margin, she excoriated them for "legislating from the bench," named a new justice to the court and pushed for the passage of an even harsher version of the same law, explicitly intended—said its sponsor—"to overturn [the Alaska Supreme Court]." Governor Palin understands the fundamental tediousness of constitutional checks and balances. She knows that if a court gets it wrong, you just build a better court.
Finally, Palin has revealed, both as the mayor of Wasilla and then as the chief executive of Alaska, a style of governance that features the not-infrequent firing of dissenters. Among the growing list of those dismissed or threatened with removal on Palin's watch were Mary Ellen Emmons, the Wasilla town librarian and vociferous opponent of Palin's proposal to dabble in book banning, and John Bitney, Palin's legislative director, who was dating the not-quite-ex-wife of one of her husband's friends. Palin is also the subject of an ethics investigation for firing Walt Monegan, the Alaska Public Safety commissioner, who declined to fire the state trooper divorcing her sister. I can't help but wonder if following two years of scandals surrounding the Bush administration's decision to terminate nine U.S. attorneys for their imagined disloyalty, John McCain might be nervous about a vice president with a proclivity toward doing the same thing. If McCain puts Palin on the Supreme Court, however, she has only a trio of law clerks and a secretary to hire, and each can be vetted for ideological purity.
No fair arguing that Palin isn't experienced enough to sit on the highest court of the land. What matters—far more than experience—is one's unyielding moral certainty, relatability and gender. And Palin has these qualities in spades. Washington's old-boy problem hardly ends at the Oval Office. If ever there were a D.C. institution in dire need of a place to plug in a breast pump, it's the Supreme Court. And Palin has already proven that neither the courts, nor precedent, nor even the Constitution itself will be a match for the force of her will. America has finally found someone suited to put the "law" back into scofflaw, and it's Sarah Palin. McCain shouldn't waste her talents on state funerals.
© 2008


Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: Nins @ 10/18/2008 2:40:34 PM
Comment: I am a Catholic pro-Life white Republican woman. I am voting for Obama.
People forget that BOTH Obama and McCain have been pro-Choice. McCain "flip-flopped" on this issue in 2004 when he started voting 90% with Bush. Prior to 2004 McCain was pro-Choice, and he even called Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance" (which in fact they were). Since that time he has stood on a stage with Jerry Falwell, praising him. So it is impossible to know what McCain actually thinks on this issue. Is he pandering to the religious right when he vows to overturn Roe v. Wade? What is really in his heart? How would he act if he were elected? Would you get the conservative McCain you see now, the liberal leftist McCain from 1999-2004? These inconsistencies disturb me. I know there is such a thing as political expedience, but the end result is that I can not trust McCain. Nobody knows his real views on abortion.
Furthermore, I think that Obama's position on abortion and many other issues is considerably more moderate than is generally assumed.
To all of the conservatives out there who think that Obama is a flaming liberal, I would like to remind you of what he did when he was elected President of the Harvard Law Review. The Law Review President gets to name ten individuals to write articles for the Review, and these ten people get to control the content of the publication. All of the minorities and the liberals thought they finally had it made, that Obama would appoint ten left wing editors. Instead, Obama appointed three conservatives, three liberals and four moderates. That year the Law Review was critically acclaimed as the best run and best written Harvard publication in decades.
So when he wins in November, conservatives don't have to freak out. Obama is a centrist and will appoint a balanced cabinet full of active people who will really get things done. This is exactly what our nation needs in this time of economic crisis.
Posted By: Nins @ 10/18/2008 1:58:34 PM
Comment: It has been the stated goal of the religious right to appoint conservative judges to overturn Roe vs. Wade for years. Bush is on board with this plan. Every single judge that Bush appointed to every single Federal bench that came open during his tenure was a right wing Christian conservative. The Democrats were stymied when the GOP controlled congress, and Bush got to appoint two right wing Supreme Court Justices.
First Bush appointed John Roberts to replace Sandra Day O'Connor when she stepped down. When Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist died in 2005, Bush appointed Roberts as Chief Justice, and then filled O'Connor's empty chair with Samuel Alito. Both Roberts and Alito are Catholic, and both are outspoken against abortion.
Bush has appointed two of the nine Justices, including the Chief Justice. The current Supreme Court has been sharply divided on a number of high profile issues, including abortion rights, affirmative action, eminent domain, gay rights, the separation of church and state, sovereign immunity, and states' rights. The number of close votes in cases involving these areas suggests that a change of one or two key justices could completely shift the thinking of the Court on such issues.
Right now there are four Justices who are elderly and will soon either retire or die. The next President will get to appoint at least two new Justices. If the next President is McCain, those two will both be conservative right wing Christians. McCain has publicly PROMISED to do this, and explicitly said that his goal is to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
Supreme Court Justices are not being paid to interpret the Bible. They are being paid to interpret the Constitution.
Most Americans, even most Republicans, value the separation of church and state. That clause is in our Constitution to protect us from exactly what is going on in America today! Allowing any religious group (especially a radical one) to control the interpretation and application of our laws in the highest court in the land is NOT democratic. Nor is it wise.
I don't care if you are a disappointed Hillary supporter or an undecided Independent or a life-long Republican or are pro-Obama. ANYONE, regardless of stripe, needs to vote against a candidate who had declared his intention of appointing partisan judges. Judges are supposed to be impartial. That is the basis of our legal system. Without that, you might as well live in a dictatorship, without recourse to law.
Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 10/17/2008 5:40:28 PM
Comment: And NEWSWEAK shouldn't waste what little talent they have left on boobs who desire Nuremberg-style show trials to go after Bush. I never took you for a CHEKKIST functionary Lithwick,but then, I have been wrong before......