Why do Supreme Court justices often shift leftward?
Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 08:14:43 AM PDT
I know, I know, more Miers.
grimace
But this is an issue that's intrigued me for years. That moderate or right-of-center justices become more liberal as they spend more time on the Supreme Court is considered a truism. On balance, I think it's correct. But why would this happen? Why wouldn't they become more conservative? What is it about being a justice that sometimes liberalizes people?
Per
David Frum yesterday: "The pressures on a Supreme Court justice to shift leftward are intense. There is the negative pressure of the vicious, hostile press that legal conservatives must endure. And there are the sweet little inducements--the flattery, the invitations to conferences in Austria and Italy, the lectureships at Yale and Harvard--that come to judges who soften and crumble. Harriet Miers is a taut, nervous, anxious personality. It is hard for me to imagine that she can endure the anger and abuse--or resist the blandishments--that transformed, say, Anthony Kennedy into the judge he is today."
He misses the point, like a good conservative. The above reasons are not why justices shift leftward. They're not even true. "Vicious, hostile press" - oh please. "Sweet little inducements"? Maybe Scalia needs to practice being nicer instead of insulting his fellow justices.
Thinking about whether Miers could be a Souter or a Kennedy or an O'Connor forced me to consider why a person who reportedly adores Bush, has hung out with him for years, has been ensconced for over four years in a highly partisan, (faux) conservative White House could ever become more liberal. This is what I came up with: If she joins the Supreme Court, she will find herself, possibly for the first time ever, forced to engage with liberals - not for the purpose of beating an opponent in an election, but for the purpose of considering cases that involve real people. I think that this is what makes justices who start out rather conservative become more liberal. She could learn for the first time what "compassionate conservatism" truly does to poor and disadvantaged people. She could learn that the right to privacy is critical to true freedom. Bear in mind, she has spent years in close contact with Bush. But on the court, that closeness would diminish. She wouldn't see him daily. In fact once he's back on the ranchette, she might see him once a year. I think this is why justices, even when appointed at advanced ages, can change.
This doesn't account for the likes of Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas. But they started out as hard-core right-wingers. Such types don't seem to get liberal. If Miers is even somewhat moderate, on the other hand, there's a chance she could learn and grow. The road to becoming liberal is the road to wisdom.
I don't mean by this diary to suggest that this appointment shouldn't be filibustered. Maybe it should. It's a complete insult for Bush to foist on us yet another of his cronies in such an important post. In an AP story, White House counselor Dan Bartlett said that Bush had not asked Miers her views on issues like abortion or gay rights. Excuse me? Did I read that clearly? Bush must think the American people are every bit as stupid as he is.
And yet I still believe that there's a possibility that Miers might turn out better (for us, not for wingnuts) than expected.
Permalink | 47 comments