Last Thursday, one day before adjourning for its summer recess, the US Senate agreed that Sonia Sotomayor could take the vacant seat on the Supreme Court. Sotomayor, whom Barack Obama nominated in late May, is the third female Supreme Court justice in history and is considered the first Hispanic.
Sotomayor had been questioned by the Senate for the entire month of July. Republicans in particular doubted she could be impartial, given Sotomayor’s efforts to promote Hispanics in public life and a statement she had once made that she hoped “a wise Latina” would “more often than not” make better decisions than a white man.
More interesting than Sotomayor, however, is the court itself, which is one of the most secretive institutions in America. Rarely is it talked about on the evening news, and its members are expected to keep their lives private.
How it works
The court has its own jargon: the nine judges are called “justices”; the court they sit in is called “the bench”; and so-called “amici curiae” or “friends of the court” — usually important politicians and civil-liberties groups — may submit opinions that the justices may consider before “handing down” (announcing) their “rulings” (decisions). In written essays, the justices explain their rationale, which often has a very broad philosophical basis. Rarely are the rulings unanimous, and the individual and minority viewpoints can be interesting to read as well.
The president nominates the Supreme Court justices, who are confirmed or rejected by the Senate. In this system of “checks and balances”, all three branches of government are involved and kept more or less equally powerful. In practice, the judiciary branch is more powerful than the executive or legislative, because it has the final say on what the other two branches may or may not do.
This was especially clear to George W. Bush, who invoked the Supreme Court in 2000 to stop a recount of presidential election ballots in Florida. Bush made sure that his lawyers were present while he was interviewed behind closed doors by the 9/11 Commission, and insisted that his attorneys general develop a legal rationale for the holding and treatment of the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay — elements of which the Supreme Court disagreed with in several important cases.
The retirement game
The justices theoretically serve for life. However, they typically retire in their late 70s or 80s, when a president of the same party is in power and can nominate a like-minded successor. Until this summer, seven of the nine justices had been nominated by Republican presidents.
Bush was conscious of this and nominated the current chief justice, John G. Roberts, now 54, and Samuel Alito, now 59. Both will be on the bench for a generation. Obama can play this game, too, and it’s hardly a coincidence that Sotomayor is only 55.
What few people have noticed is that, with Sotomayor, six Catholic justices now sit on the Court. Republicans and Democrats both try to win votes by raising the hope or fear that the Supreme Court will overturn its 1973 decision allowing abortion. Whether it will want to is anyone’s guess. My guess is that the court will have more important things to do.
Further reading
I highly recommend Jeffrey Toobin’s 2007 book The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court. Written like a spy novel, with vivid imagery, dialogue and Toobin’s talent for clever observation, the book offers an intimate look at the workings of the Court in the last 30 years and the “swing justices” who managed to keep the Court’s decisions in line with public opinion.
