Activism in the U.S. Supreme Court

President Barack Obama’s pick of moderate Elena Kagan, current solicitor general, as his nominee to succeed Justice John Paul Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court leaves both conservatives and liberals momentarily confused and less than satisfied.

President Obama said he would look for a candidate with qualities similar to those of Justice Stevens: “An independent mind, a record of excellence and integrity, a fierce dedication to the rule of law and a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people.� He describes Elena Kagan as an intelligent, consensus-building pragmatist capable of reaching “understanding before disagreement.�

As a legal scholar, professor of law and dean of the Harvard Law School, Ms. Kagan clearly meets the basic qualifications for Supreme Court justice. At the same time, she has never been a judge or a litigator in the courts of law (many fine justices have not), and not much is known about her judicial philosophy.

Judicial philosophy is a short-hand euphemism for finding out where the candidate stands in the left-right political spectrum of today, and, if liberal, whether the candidate is prone to judicial activism, that is, a propensity to create new law without waiting for the Legislature to do so.

When Sonia Sotomayor faced the music of Senate confirmation hearings in the summer of 2009, she was virtually forced by her inquisitors to affirm what every first-year law student knows to be untrue, namely that “judges do not make the law; they only interpret it.� Conservative senators will demand to know where the nominee stands on “judicial activism.� The question is deliberately misleading.

The conservative objection to judicial activism is intended to deter further liberal or progressive court decisions, such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which put an end to racial segregation in schools, or Roe v. Wade (1973), which affirmed a woman’s right to choose, thus limiting the power of government to intrude on her privacy. Yes, these cases were truly activist in the sense that they both created new law that never existed before.

The outcomes of these cases were liberal and progressive in the sense that they sided with the less powerful — blacks and women — against the powers that be: racist and fundamentalist authorities who wanted things to remain the way they were.

It is nonsense to claim that the Supreme Court is not, or should not be, activist. Indeed, today’s Supreme Court majority (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and often Kennedy) is the most activist as well as conservative or neoconservative judicial wing in living memory. They vote again and again, 5 to 4, against the more liberal minority (Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor).

The latest example of this judicial activism is Citizens United v. FEC (2010) which held that government could not limit corporations’ political spending for or against candidates in elections. This decision was activist in the sense that it created new law. More than that, it overturned more than a century of judicial precedent to the contrary, as well as legislation such as McCain-Feingold. The majority ruling was conservative in the sense that it sided with the wealthy and powerful corporations against ordinary American citizens. (See “Voting rights, free speech and corporate personhood,� The Lakeville Journal, April 8, 2010.)

Looking through the inevitable smokescreen of political debate, we can put aside the misleading, and frankly false, issue of judicial activism, and focus on the practical question facing the president in this case. Can Obama obtain bipartisan consensus even on a moderate candidate, or is he doomed to a conservative filibuster no matter whom he nominates? The recent experience with health-care reform and Wall Street regulation does not bode well for a judicious outcome. Democrats and Republicans are fully aware that Supreme Court appointments are for life, and long out-live presidential administrations. The stakes are high, and the consequences are long-term.

In the event that confirmation of Elena Kagan is totally stymied in the Senate, then Obama could take a page from George W. Bush’s playbook and make an interim appointment while the Senate is in recess, relying on the Constitution’s Article II, Section 2 (3) which states that: “The president shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.� There’s plenty of precedent for doing exactly that. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to it.

Sharon resident Anthony Piel is a former director and general legal counsel of the World Health Organization.
 

Latest News

A scenic 32-mile loop through Litchfield County

Whenever I need to get a quick but scenic bicycle ride but don’t have time to organize a group ride that involves driving to a meeting point, I just turn right out of my driveway. That begins a 32-mile loop through some of the prettiest scenery in northern Litchfield County.

I ride south on Undermountain Road (Route 41 South) into Salisbury and turn right on Main Street (Route 44 West). If I’m meeting friends, we gather at the parking area on the west side of Salisbury Town Hall where parking is never a problem.

Keep ReadingShow less
Biking Ancramdale to Copake

This is a lovely ride that loops from Ancramdale north to Copake and back. At just over 23 miles and about 1,300 feet of elevation gain, it’s a perfect route for intermediate recreational riders and takes about two hours to complete. It’s entirely on quiet roads with little traffic, winding through rolling hills, open countryside, picturesque farms and several lakes.

Along the way, you’ll pass a couple of farmstands that are worth a quick visit. There is only one hill that might be described as steep, but it is quite short — probably less than a quarter-mile.

Keep ReadingShow less
Taking on Tanglewood

Aerial view of The Shed at Tanglewood in Lenox, Mass.

Provided

Now is the perfect time to plan ahead for symphonic music this summer at Tanglewood in Lenox, Massachusetts. Here are a few highlights from the classical programming.

Saturday, July 5: Shed Opening Night at 8 p.m. Andris Nelsons conducts the Boston Symphony Orchestra as Daniil Trifonov plays piano in an All-Rachmaninoff program. The Piano Concerto No. 3 was completed in 1909 and was written specifically to be debuted in the composer’s American tour, at another time of unrest and upheaval in Russia. Trifonev is well-equipped to take on what is considered among the most technically difficult piano pieces. This program also includes Symphonic Dances, a work encapsulating many ideas and much nostalgia.

Keep ReadingShow less
James H. Fox

SHARON — James H. Fox, resident of Sharon, passed away on May 30, 2025, at Vassar Brothers Hospital.

Born in New York, New York, to Herbert Fox and Margaret Moser, James grew up in Hastings-on-Hudson, New York. He spent his summers in Gaylordsville, Connecticut, where he developed a deep connection to the community.

Keep ReadingShow less