The Supremes

Caught part of an interesting documentary on PBS about the Supreme Court. Didn't know how bad of a choice William Rehnquist was--seemed like your classic 70s conservative WAM, mad at losing the 60s and looking for a backlash.

Next, they look at Roe v. Wade, with a focus on the newly-appointed Harry Blackmun (Nixon put three justices on the court at around the same time). Who had three daughters.... Classic newscast, Cronkite reporting on Roe v. Wade's decision being announced; well-written, direct copy. Law prof makes the point Blackmun's opinion focused more on doctor's rights than woman's.

Hmm, interesting, Rehnquist was apparently on the short end of a bunch of 8-1 votes, got the nickname the Lone Ranger. My gosh, the court and country sure have changed. I am getting annoyed by the documentary's style of quick cuts, multiple voices running into each other. Bad way to look at a topic like the Supreme Court. Even Sandra Day O'Connor gets one sentence on Rehnquist, and that's it. There are so many talking heads, all erudite--they're trying to weave them all into a coherent narrative, I'm sure things are being taken out of context, things are being bent to make it all come out neatly.

Now they're looking at William Brennan's ability to get 5 votes. Now, a few minutes later, and it's Warren Burger. My gosh, this is really getting to me. They also have this irritating habit of shooting someone wide, then jumping in tight; again, tricky editing, the similar angles make me think it's not two cameras. And now, photo manipulation--they show justices posing for a group shot, then move three of them together to illustrate how they found common ground on a Wainwright v. Sykes. Ugh.

I mean, really, this is meant to give you the veneer of having learned about the Supreme Court, when really, I doubt anyone who doesn't already know the topic is really following or retaining much of anything. Now Reagan is sworn in, by Berger. Hearing Ed Meese talk about him is midly comical, Meese really represented the nadir of Reagan's men.

In comes the conservative tide, which made Nixon look like a liberal (in an odd way he really wasn't a bad guy--they have him telling Rehnquist essentially now that you're on the court you're of course independent, here's some advice, now good luck).

Factoid: Carter appointed more women to the federal courts than all other presidents before him, combined. Reagan's looking for a non-Carter woman for the Court; of course, he finds O'Connor, who I've always liked even though I disagree with many of her views. They bring up her old ties to Rehnquist, not mentioning, oddly enough, that even though she was #2 in their class after him, she wasn't offered any jobs out of law school, and had to start as a secretary.

They show when Berger decided to step down from the court and Rehnquist was nominated to replace him; apparently the media was totally taken by surprise. Ah, Scalia's first appearance--looking oh so young. Rehnquist has already grown into his power, much more at ease than in the early 70s. And Nino--he looks nothing more than a bright, eager young guy, was confirmed 98-0. Rehnquist was confirmed, apparently with a lot of no votes.

Hmm, talking heads say Rehnquist's elevation was greeted well by the other justices, since he ran the court well (in contrast to Berger), and they respected him intellectually. Apparently pretty down-to-earth, efficient, well-liked. And yet--it's Rehnquist we're talking about here!

Soon therafter Marshall and Brennan are gone, then Kennedy, Souter, Thomas join. And the right has its majority, right? Well.... Planned Parenthood vs. Casey is next, I think; sure enough, and maybe I'm just getting used to it, but I think the documentary's pacing has slowed, it's a little better now. Focus now is on O'Connor. Who apparently coaxed, not bullied. How lady-like of her. Sheesh; she's steel, not velvet. Before you know it, Kennedy's voted with O'Connor and Rehnquist has lost another abortion case. Analysts contrast Rehnquist's acceptance of the decision and desire to get on with the work, with Scalia's 'primal scream' of an opinion. Ah, the old Nixonian conservatives vs. the new Reaganites.

They do a thing on federalism; I do think it's interesting how far we've come from the founders, who essentially said let's spell out exactly the powers government should have, because it's obvious that the vast bulk of things are beyond their reach. There's a shot of Rehnquist and his ridiculous Gilbert/Sullivan-inspired four gold stripes on his robe; then it's off to their shot at overturning Miranda.

Wow, they got John Roberts to talk; he says something general about the chief justice's role impacting your views when you move from associate to chief, he even specifically cites the Dickerson case they're focusing on.

Hmm, seems like they're already summing up the Rehnquist court; they assert for the most part, the nation approved--citing a poll that most of the public expressed confidence in the court. Well, sure, as an institution.

And then--Florida, and Bush v. Gore. Ah, those were crazy days. Everyone forgets the AP's private recount actually had Bush increasing his lead, so even if the Supreme Court had ruled for Gore, Bush would still have won. They show the analysts sprinting out of the Court afterwards to go on TV and read the opinion; I remember Jeffrey Toobin on ABC reading the first line, saying oh, they've gone with Gore; then continuing to read and realizing he misread.

The talking heads claim people trusted the court, so even though they saw the view as partisan, they still accepted it. Uh, I don't know about that--I think we underestimate how crucial a decision Gore made to accept the ruling. If it weren't for him, we could've had a true constitutional crisis.

And that wraps up the Rehnquist court. I guess it could've been worse--but I'm not sure we fully realize how bad it was. The court's role has shifted so rightward, in part because the left won a lot of the big battles in the 60s and 70s.

I still think on the issues of race in particular, discrimination in general, where most people are deluded but strongly don't believe they are and where pockets of outright bigots have undue influence, there's nothing wrong with an activist Supreme Court that's out ahead of most of the country. As long as they're right, of course.