WASHINGTON (AFP) - The upcoming nomination of a new US Supreme Court justice to fill a vacancy created by retiring Sandra Day O'Connor could alter a delicate political balance inside the court that plays a key role in US society.
O'Connor, one of nine Supreme Court justices who is considered a moderate, announced her retirement in early July. Then, in early September, ultra-conservative US chief justice William Rehnquist died.
Rehnquist was formally replaced on Thursday by former federal judge John Roberts, a dapper conservative who largely shares the views of the late chief justice. The change, however, should not alter the balance of forces on the Supreme Court.
But President George W. Bush could try to replace O'Connor with a right-leaning jurist, thus changing the makeup of the court for decades to come.
O'Connor, who was appointed in 1981 by president Ronald Reagan, became the first female justice of the US Supreme Court. Although the choice of a conservative president, she often took centrist positions in the otherwise conservative institution.
Because of her, the progressive bloc of justices was able to push through important decisions on gay rights, affirmative action, the death penalty as well as to largely preserve abortion rights.
Amazing, isn't it? You'd think this were an op/ed piece. It should be that, in fact, except that AFP is pawning it off as "reporting."
First of all, the article refers to O'Connor as being one of "nine" moderate judges. Bearing in mind that there are only nine judges sitting on the Supreme Court bench at any one time I have to assume that's a mistake. But looking at how the article refers to Rhenquist as being "ultra-conservative" (and then paints Roberts with the same brush) one can only assume that the author of this article believes there are only two types of people serving on SCOTUS: moderates and "ultra-conservatives."
Then the article goes on to list a litany of "important decisions" passed by the "progressive bloc" (not those evil, "ultra-conservatives"), as though it were the Supreme Court's job to make things like abortion or gay marriage legal instead of ruling on the law.
The overall tone of the article is that our freedom would somehow be in jeopardy should the Supreme Court gain a majority of right-leaning judges. Which, of course, is an assumption that is biased at its very roots.
I honestly can't believe they get away with passing this off as fair reporting.