Covering SCOTUS (by Duane Shank)
As a confirmed newspaper addict, I've learned to pay attention to the bylines on stories, and over the years have learned which ones to look for on particular topics. In Sunday morning's New York Times, I see that one of my favorites is retiring. For nearly 30 years, Linda Greenhouse has covered the Supreme Court and I've come to trust her reporting - always well-researched and well-written. If I want to understand a complicated Court decision, I go to her story first. When the new Court term begins in October, it won't be the same.
In her final piece yesterday, she offered some reflections on her years covering the Court. She describes learning "a real sense of the court as an active participant in the ceaseless American dialogue about constitutional values and priorities, not a remote oracle" and points out that:
In fact, it is most often the Supreme Court that is the follower. It ratifies or consolidates change rather than propelling it, although in the midst of heated debate over a major case, it can often appear otherwise. Without delving into the vast political science and legal academic literature on this point, I'm simply offering my empirical observation that the court lives in constant dialogue with other institutions, formal and informal, and that when it strays too far outside the existing political or social consensus, the result is a palpable tension both inside and outside the court.
Although the piece doesn't say so, I for one certainly hope that she writes a book on her years covering the Court. I'll look forward to it.
Duane Shank is senior policy adviser for Sojourners.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Interesting but I find the Supreme Court battles based on world views . Both sides can believe in the breathing document , but that tends to be more form the left side of issues .
One world view , as an example speaking to the right to assisted suicide says
Life is a gift from God, and that "each individual [is] its steward." 4 Thus, only God can start a life, and only God should be allowed to end one. An individual who commits suicide is committing sin.
God does not send us any experience that we cannot handle. God supports people in suffering. To actively seek an end to one's life would represent a lack of trust in God's promise.
The onther world view, liberal , basically says
Of course, there is a significant and growing percentage of Agnostics, Atheists, Humanists, secularists, non-Christians and liberal Christians in North America who do not accept these theologically based arguments. They might argue:
Each person has autonomy over their own life. Persons whose quality of life is nonexistent should have the right to decide to commit suicide, and to seek assistance if necessary.
Sometimes a terminal illness is so painful that it causes life to be an unbearable burden; death can represent a relief of intolerable pain.
Posted by: Matt | July 14, 2008 5:38 PM
Of course, she also reported on cases in which her husband was a litigant.
That said, I suspect this is laying the groundwork for Sojo to foray into this issue.
Posted by: kevin s. | July 14, 2008 6:43 PM
She was also an outspoken abortion rights advocate whose ideological tilts were frequently challenged by critics.
I suspect a number of reasons why Sojo avoids commentary on SCOTUS. Assuming that they would generally side with the more liberal wing of the court, I think it would be hard to get riled up over what are often sincere attempts at interpretation of the constitution by conservatives. They'd have to bounce around from history, to linguistic/contextual analysis, to prior decisions, and then back to scripture saying that God opposes the decision. Could be tricky. (Note that the commentary they posted on the recent second amendment decision just skipped straight to the last step).
It's also difficult to fault a conservative judge for arguing that certain issues should be decided democratically, at the state level, or via constitutional amendment. They would effectively be arguing for judges to usurp the democratic process in many instances.
Lastly, they might find themselves in a pickle if they attack the legitimacy of some court decisions while never questioning Roe v. Wade, which is pretty indefensible as constitutional law goes.
It's probably better for them just not to comment at all.
Posted by: jesse | July 14, 2008 7:49 PM
I think the real reason Sojo hasn't weighed in the Supreme Court is that there hasn't been a need. The court still tilts 5-4 in favor of liberal causes, and Obama will appoint very liberal judges anyway, so why not save their ammo for his defense?
Posted by: kevin s. | July 15, 2008 9:45 PM
From my reading so far , I don't think they think that far ahead Kevin .
Posted by: Matt | July 15, 2008 11:41 PM
You might find this informative.
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/06/20/1/a-conversation-with-justice-antonin-scalia
cheers, Paul
Posted by: Paul | July 16, 2008 1:47 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?