Looking to November

It’s no secret the 2010 Midterm Elections will be tough for the party in power – as most Midterm Elections are. I journeyed today into the future, to get a better understanding of what November might hold for the American political landscape.

On the surface, it looks good. Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball has the GOP picking up seven Senate seats, 27 House seats and four Governorships. Unfortunately, however, that would only put a dent – albeit a considerably large one – in the Democratic Majority.

The Washington Times ran a story today indicating though the GOP may be in a little better shape than expected.

The long-shot bid by Republicans to retake control of the Senate is suddenly in play, as the prospect of high-profile Republican candidates entering the fray has pushed the GOP even or ahead in polling for 10 races.

The potential candidacies of former Republican Govs. George E. Pataki in New York and Tommy G. Thompson in Wisconsin are improving the polling fortunes of the party as it pursues seats long in the hands of Democrats, while the anti-government “tea party” movement has provided momentum to Republican challengers in states such as Florida, Arkansas and Pennsylvania.

“If the election were held today, the Republicans could come close to winning back the Senate, if not actually win it,” said pollster John Zogby.

Optimistic assessment, no doubt, but there’s no reason not to be optimistic. President Obama and Congress have failed to deliver on many of the promises made coming in to office. Partly because the American people have said no and partly because Republicans have played good politics.

There’s more at stake than just numbers in the House and Senate. The Democratic Majority Leader, Harry Reid, is very much in danger of losing re-election in Nevada. For Democrats, that may be good news more so than bad because Reid has a history of fumbling on important legislation  - i.e. health care reform.

More importantly though – what’s at stake is momentum going into 2012. There are another 33 Senate seats up for grabs in 2012 and another round of House elections. If the GOP makes considerable gains, which it will, we’re likely to see a flurry of Democratic retirements going in to 2012. That’s not even taking into account what impact this may have on the 2012 White House race.

The end game is this: Republicans are going to make waves in November that likely won’t come to shore until 2012. Fortunately, politics isn’t always about the short term.

Sabato misses the point

Mount Olympus?

There was quite a fuss over President Obama’s remark in the State of the Union that the Supreme Court opened the floodgates to special interest in its Citizens United opinion.

The President’s comments in full: “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”

There is something to be said about the President’s own inaccuracies, but many have already done so and I won’t be redundant.

I’m writing to address the response by Dr. Larry Sabato. Professor Sabato, as I hope to have the privledge of calling him next semester, responded to the President’s quote, Justice Samuel Alito’s response and the response of the media by writing for Politico.com.

In part he wrote that,

“Mr. Obama’s blunt attack on the Court’s ruling, with the members sitting in front of him, was no doubt stunning and unsettling to some, and it contradicted his frequent calls for bipartisanship and civility.

…

“At the same time, President Obama had every right to denounce a decision that is fundamentally at odds with his beliefs.

…

“Still, I believe the members of the Court are entirely too sheltered by lifetime tenure as well as often-obsequious deference to them during their public appearances. Comfortably ensconced on the constitutional equivalent of Mount Olympus, they can seem oblivious to the real-world consequences of their rulings. It is good for them to be challenged in public by the President and others.

…

“No one wants a brawl, but it is good for the Court to be reminded that it is not a hermetically sealed institution—and it’s good for the President to be reminded that how he says something is often as important as what he says.”

Professor Sabato has written before on his opinion that the Court is far too sheltered from the rest of American political development. He has argued against lifetime tenure, insteading pushing for non-renewable terms.

I think, however, the President’s comments and the response of many to the Court’s ruling exemplifies the very need for lifetime tenure and entirely insulated from “politics.”

Think for a moment if members of the Supreme Court did not have lifetime tenure. Would they have been more or less likely to issue a ruling many members of the current political party in power openly disagree with? Surely, less is the obvious answer. On the other hand, if Republicans were in power would they have been more or less likely to issue the ruling from two weeks ago? Obviously, more.

But because our Judges are appointed for a lifetime and need not to worry about being removed merely because of an opinion, they can issue opinions they deem as proper interpretations of the law.

Much can be said about campaign finance laws that restrict the voice of many, merely because they have more money, but that’s not the point at hand here. It is to say that because judges are relatively unaffected by partisan tides or the ebb and flow of political opinion, they can make decisions that perhaps in the long run are more beneficial to the Union as a whole.

Professor Sabato argues for non-renewable terms in his book “A More Prefect Constitution.” The problem with non-renewable terms is that Judges would still then be forced to worry about what to do once they leave the Supreme Court. A Judge who knows that in 10 years he will need to find another job, in my opinion, is more likely to curry favors or partisanship in his or her opinions.

The Supreme Court is an institution with a valuable role in American political development. The necessity for judicial review of both the Executive and the Legislative branch requires that the Court be immune to the factors that influence those branches and thus be immune to any influence those branches may attempt to exercise.

I think, Professor Sabato, fails to see this argument because he thinks “politics is a good thing” and indeed it is. But for American political development to operate as it was intended to and to ensure the Executive doesn’t ignore the Legislature and to ensure that neither the Executive nor the Legislature ignore the Constitution, an independent Judiciary is absolutely necessary.