I've watched with some amusement the state supreme court election and its aftermath in Wisconsin. The incumbent, Republican David Prosser, and the challenger, Democrat JoAnne Kloppenburg, are said to represent the two sides in the debate over Governor Scott Walker's legislative strategy.
The outcome of the election remains up in the air and the challenger has requested a hand recount of the votes.
Since I don't live in Wisconsin, I have no pony in the race. What I have found slightly amusing, though, is that Kloppenburg's supporters are CONVINCED that their champion will swing the court from conservative to liberal. The problem with this assumption is that it is not a given at all.
In 1953, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower nominated Earl Warren, the former three-term Republican Governor of California, as Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. After he was confirmed, Warren led the court in what many believe was a very liberal direction. The famous Brown decision -- which ended legal segregation -- came on Warren's watch. Earl Warren turned out not to be the conservative jurist that many of his supporters thought he would be.
The same thing happened with his replacement. Republican President Richard M. Nixon nominated Republican Warren Burger and decisions like Roe v Wade -- the absolute bane of many conservatives -- came during Burger's tenure as Chief Justice (with Burger himself part of the majority).
My point here is that knowing a potential justice's general political perspective is in no way an accurate predictor of how that person might vote once on the bench. Throughout the history of the American court system, conservatives have turned around to support decisions that generally are viewed as progressive, while liberals have turned around to support decisions that generally are viewed as conservative.
Of course, it doesn't always play out this way, but it does happen more often than many people think.
So, if Kloppenburg is declared the winner after a recount, this may or not mean what her supporters think it might.
The outcome of the election remains up in the air and the challenger has requested a hand recount of the votes.
Since I don't live in Wisconsin, I have no pony in the race. What I have found slightly amusing, though, is that Kloppenburg's supporters are CONVINCED that their champion will swing the court from conservative to liberal. The problem with this assumption is that it is not a given at all.
In 1953, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower nominated Earl Warren, the former three-term Republican Governor of California, as Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. After he was confirmed, Warren led the court in what many believe was a very liberal direction. The famous Brown decision -- which ended legal segregation -- came on Warren's watch. Earl Warren turned out not to be the conservative jurist that many of his supporters thought he would be.
The same thing happened with his replacement. Republican President Richard M. Nixon nominated Republican Warren Burger and decisions like Roe v Wade -- the absolute bane of many conservatives -- came during Burger's tenure as Chief Justice (with Burger himself part of the majority).
My point here is that knowing a potential justice's general political perspective is in no way an accurate predictor of how that person might vote once on the bench. Throughout the history of the American court system, conservatives have turned around to support decisions that generally are viewed as progressive, while liberals have turned around to support decisions that generally are viewed as conservative.
Of course, it doesn't always play out this way, but it does happen more often than many people think.
So, if Kloppenburg is declared the winner after a recount, this may or not mean what her supporters think it might.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are unmoderated, so you can write whatever you want.