Americans Away From Home

Justice David H. Souter                                       Photo: Matthew Cavanaugh/European Pressphoto Agency

It's a big deal.

President Obama may get to name the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice. There are only 9 people who make U.S. Supreme Court decisions. One of them, David Souter, may be retiring by July, according to four sources (according to the New York Times).

Why is this such a big deal?

Laws are laws (ok, that's obvious) and there are only a few ways laws get made in the United States. One way is for towns, cities, states, to pass rules or laws - but these are the little fish. What they do can be overturned and overruled (= thrown out) by courts with more authority, in each area, state, region. Ultimately, it can get to the big guns, which is the U.S. Supreme Court.

The main way laws get made is - Congress, the legislature of the United States, passes a law. Congress is both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

Did you know that many people outside the U.S. cannot understand what "Congress" means? I'm asked this question all the time by people in the U.K. In fairness, few Americans understand how laws get passed in the U.K. or other countries, so the lack of understanding and presence of questions is pretty much mutual.

The other main way law gets made in the U.S. - or unmade, undone, let go, tossed out, becoming a true artifact of yesterday; here, then gone today - is when the U.S. Supreme Court says so.

The Supreme Court said so in 1954, in one of the most important cases in U.S. history, Brown versus The Board of Education, a crucial decision in making education available for people of all colors in the U.S. The Supreme Court said so again in Roe versus Wade, the case that protected a woman's right to choose to have an abortion.

And the Supreme Court said so again in 2000, when the Court determined the course of history and the lives of Americans and many other people worldwide when they ended counting votes for President between Al Gore and George Bush. The decision was determined by one vote - one vote! - effectively declaring George Bush President.

Justice Souter bitterly dissented. He wrote, “There is no justification for denying the state the opportunity to try to count all disputed ballots now."

When the Supreme Court "refuses" to hear a law case, it has the effect of permitting current law to stand. So by their decision to not take action, the Supreme Court effectively takes action to affirm laws or decisions to keep laws made by courts which are lower on the legal totem pole.

Clear, then, how one vote can count? And Obama gets to choose that potential one vote.

For the first time in 15 years, a Democratic President will get to appoint a Supreme Court Justice.

Names float. Will Obama appoint a woman, given that the only woman on the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is 76? Perhaps Elena Kagan, Obama's Solicitor General? Sonia Sotomayor or Diane Pamela Wood, judges of federal appeals courts?

Maybe Kim M. Wardlaw or Kathleen M. Sullivan, the first a federal appeals court judge in California, the second a former dean of Stanford Law School?

(He wouldn't, would he? He could even appoint Michelle! She's a lawyer...)

Barack Obama said he would look for judges “who hopefully have a sense of what real-world folks are going through,” in a campaign debate, saying the appointment would be "One of the most consequential decisions of the next president."

And what would David Souter be doing instead of making history? His friends say he wants to go back to New Hampshire while he's still young enough to enjoy climbing mountains and other outdoor activities.   (NY Times story here).

Carole