By Scott Lemieux
In my last post, I discussed the possibility that the Obama administration could represent a new, "reconstructive" era in American politics. The political scientist Keith Whittington has noted that one characteristic of Reconstructive presidencies is clashes with the judicial branch. Jefferson initiated substantial reductions in the power of federal courts he perceived as hostile, Jackson and Lincoln essentially ignored unfavorable Supreme Court rulings, FDR floated a court-packing plan to overcome a judiciary that struck down much of his first term's legislative agenda, and Regan promised to appoint judges hostile to many of the landmark rulings of previous Courts.
The reason these patterns recur, of course, is that reconstructive presidents generally enter office facing a judiciary dominated by members affiliated with the previous regime. This is, in substantial measure, true of the Obama administration -- before the retirement of Justice Souter 7 of the 9 members of the Supreme Court were Republican nominees, and the federal courts as a whole tilt strongly towards conservative Republicans. And yet -- despite Democratic control by both branches -- Obama has moved more slowly on judicial appointments than his predecessor (who also faced an opposition party determined to slow the flow of nominees onto the courts.)
There are several explanations. One is that Obama simply will not be a reconstructive president. Another is that he may see fights as the federal courts as better resting on the back-burner until the debate over health care legislation has been resolved. A final -- and to me, perhaps most convincing -- explanation is simply that the stakes for judicial appointments is less than it was for some previous presidents. As Whittington notes, the increase of judicial power (that makes the kind of outright defiance more common in the 19th century all but inconceivable today) has its source in the deliberate empowerment of the courts by the political branches. One result of this is that the Supreme Court, while theoretically more powerful than it's ever bin, has avoided the kind of direct challenges to central parts of a current regime's agenda that the Court last tried during FD'Rs administration. The Court's Raich v. Gonzales decision seems to signal that what some had called the Court's "federalist revolution" would be limited only to legislation of the most marginal importance. Courts may be a low priority for Obama because he doesn't see them as a threat to the most important parts of his legislative agenda -- and despite the current Republican majority on the Court he may well be right.
