Choosing a president to choose a Court

Nader wants a Court that protects our rights

Well, it's the year 2000, and the politicians still don't trust us girls to make up our own minds. With the presidential election fast approaching, as many as four Supreme Court justices potentially retiring, and the anniversary of the murder of Dr. Barnett Slepian looming, many Americans are concerned about the future of a woman's right to choose. And besides abortion—the primary issue at stake—possible Supreme Court openings will affect many social issues, including gay rights and the continuation of the death penalty.

HYURA CHOI/YH

The situation is pretty grim. If George W. Bush, DC '68, gets into office, he's going to put conservatives on the bench. If Al Gore wins, he's not making any promises. Ralph Nader's the only candidate who has made a clear, consistent commitment on these issues. Bush could and would pack the court with anti-Roe, anti-female judges. John Paul Stevens is 80, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is an ailing 67, Sandra Day O'Connor is 70, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the only one of these judges with an anti-choice record, is 76. This means that the president will have four seats to play with, three of which have been occupied by pro-choice judges. If he fills these seats with anti-choice judges, women are back to square one. Meanwhile, Gore promised us that he would do everything in his power to protect a woman's right to choose. But this is the same guy who has voted against Medicaid-funded abortions. He told us that his nominees for the Supreme Court would be "very likely" to uphold Roe v. Wade. He describes his position regarding abortion as "evolving." Another word for that is "flip-flopping."

Then there's the issue of the death penalty. For all their talk of protecting the rights of the unborn, Bush and Gore aren't too eager to protect the rights of anyone convicted of murder. The death penalty system is flawed. The number of convictions overturned in light of new evidence is chilling, and a person's chances of being executed, whether or not he committed a crime, skyrocket if he happens to be black or Hispanic. Government statistics show that the dozen states that have not enacted the death penalty since the Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that it was constitutionally permissible have not had higher homicide rates than states with the death penalty. It is a waste of time, money, and human lives. And both Bush and Gore support it!

Of course, Gore wants to make sure we only use government executions "fairly." He wants to use DNA testing to make sure prisoners are actually guilty of the crimes they were accused of committing, before we execute them. He wants to end racial profiling and other practices that make minorities distrust the criminal justice system. Too bad he can't. Only Nader has enough moral decency and common sense to call for an immediate moratorium on capital punishment. Finally, there are gay rights. Bush is firmly against gay marriage, gay adoption, and overturning the Boy Scouts' ban on gays. Gore says he likes gay people. He even supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and "legal protections for domestic partnerships." But the bottom line is, both Gore and Bush support the "historical, traditional, and present understanding" of marriage as "between a man and a woman." Only Nader supports the immediate granting of full marriage benefits to gay people.

What it comes down to in November is how little Americans are willing to lower their expectations. I lived about 20 minutes away from Slepian, an obstetrician who was shot to death in front of his wife and oldest son because he wouldn't stop performing abortions. I am deeply concerned about the future of abortion rights in this country. The death penalty makes me sick. I like gay people, and I'll bet I have more gay friends than Al and Tipper. So I have a personal stake in these issues. Obviously, I'm not voting for Bush. But Gore? An "evolving" record on abortion is not good enough. The death penalty is not good. And gay people should not have to wait for Gore to decide that they deserve the same benefits he and Tipper do. I am voting for Ralph Nader, because he is the only candidate who's not settling.

Raina Lipsitz is a freshman in Trumbull.

Bush's appointees will uphold our Constitution

It doesn't surprise me that people find no important issues in this year's presidential race. Many may not be able to see clearly the difference between Al Gore the statist and George W. Bush, DC '68, the states' rights candidate, but—at the very least—I hope that people will listen to what every pundit in America has had to say over the past year: the next president will have the opportunity to appoint a number of Supreme Court justices, changing the face of the highest court in the land. Now the choice before the American voter is to decide whether he or she wants a Supreme Court that respects the U.S. constitution or one that would disregard it for the sake of ideology.

When asked whether Roe v. Wade would be a litmus test, each candidate made clear where he stood: Bush wants justices who would judge the validity of the law, while Gore wants justices who would uphold abortion. The key issue in appointing Supreme Court justices is the question of how much authority the federal government may exert.

Bush sells himself as the strict Constitutionalist that he is, realizing that the federal government should be limited as the founders intended and leave most decisions up to the states. They established a federal government in which matters not spelled out explicitly by it are left to the states. Bush would appoint justices who would preserve this traditional understanding of the Constitution and not appoint justices that would enforce laws Bush himself finds appealing.

Gore has a far simpler approach. What Gore likes, Gore will ensure the justices support. Gore's activist justices will not consider whether or not something is bad law, but whether or not it furthers a policy that he supports. There are many legal theorists who would claim that Roe v. Wade and other possible litmus tests constitute an overstepping of federal government authority regardless of their opinions on abortion itself. Gore would ignore such concerns of legal method and focus instead on the policy itself, increasing the reach of federal power to frightening proportions.

Supreme Court justices not only judge policy (unless it is an obvious violation of the Constitution), they also judge method. Roe v. Wade not only validates abortion, it also dictates how abortion laws ought to be enforced throughout the country. Whether states or the national government enforce the law is a key constitutional question, Thus, it is not only the policy on trial, it's the method as well. But a Gore court would ignore this point for the sake of the policy. The Supreme Court must always take into account its jurisdictional powers and not declare itself the supreme authority of right and wrong in the United States. We live in a democratic nation, but we leave all questions of what is good and right to an oligarchy of nine individuals. Their opinion is final, and there is no recourse.

Bush understands this power and wants a Court that would not abuse it. Bush does not want a Court that destroys the federalism that men like Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson fought so hard to establish. Bush instead wants a Court that knows its place, understands the bounds of its own authority, and will not make policy so much as decide, if it passes Constitutional muster, how it gets enforced. But Gore wants a Court that will be little more than an arm of the executive branch, ensuring that the federal government will become an intrusive monstrosity. Gore does not want what the constitution demands; he wants a body that will make his word the final authority.

The American people must put some thought toward who they want in the White House to appoint Supreme Court justices. Do they want a man who respects the Constitution over his own whims and will appoint men with similar respect for our greatest document, or do they want a man who will make the Constitution an irrelevant scrap of paper, sacrificing it to the monster of ideology? It basically boils down to a choice between respecting what the founders created, or spitting on their graves. I suppose we will find out what the American people want on Tues., Nov. 7.

Jeffrey Dorough is a senior in Trumbull and the head of Yale's Pro-Life League.

Back to Opinion...