(U.S.) Supreme Court Politics
By Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe Columnist, op-ed pages,
October 3, 2004
“COULD WE turn our attention for one brief moment from the rough and tumble world of presidential politics to the serene and cerebral world of the (U.S.) Supreme Court? No? Then, how about if we turn our attention from the rough and tumble of presidential politics to the rough and tumble of (U.S.) Supreme Court politics?
“The court (term) will open Monday (October 4, 2004) just in time for its quadrennial and cameo appearance on the political stage. As the dignified justices file into the dignified chamber, there will be a rather undignified murmur from the professional court watchers:
“Say, aren't eight of the nine members on Medicare? Isn't John Paul Stevens 84? Didn't Chief Justice William Rehnquist just turn 80? How is Sandra Day O'Connor, a survivor of breast cancer? And Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had colon cancer? Everybody feeling OK? Anybody ready to retire to a golf course in Arizona?"
(snip)
“What makes the issue so central now are the sheer number of important decisions that are 5-4 or 6-3. An analysis done by the People For the American Way concluded that 100 Supreme Court precedents would be overturned with one or two more conservative justices.” (
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=17132 and
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=People_for_the_American_Way both as last visited Thursday, October 07, 2004)
(snip)
more Ellen Goodman’s “(U.S.) Supreme Court Politics” at . . .
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/10/03/supreme_court_politics/(as last visited Thursday, October 07, 2004; the Boston Globe online allows access for only a few days to non-hardbound subscribers to its newspaper)