‘ ‘ ‘ The 2008 presidential election is one of the most significant in American history…. ‘ ‘ ‘ The 2008 presidential election is one of the most significant in American history. Recently, much of the attention of both Sen. Barack Obama’s and Sen. John McCain’s campaigns has turned to the failing economy. However, perhaps one of the most significant decisions that the next U.S. president will have to make is the appointment of federal judges. ‘ ‘ ‘ Justice John Paul Stevens will be 88 years old in April, and by January 2009 five other Supreme Court justices will be between 69 and 75 years of age. Regardless of who wins on Nov. 4, the next president will be responsible for shaping the ideological make-up of the highest court in the United States. With such significant implications on American society, it is vital that the president nominate a judge who is capable of adapting the Constitution to modern society and the circumstances of the present time. ‘ ‘ ‘ McCain has already stated that he would use both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both of whom have strong conservative leanings, as the ‘model for my own nominees, if that responsibility falls to me,’ according to his Web site. ‘ ‘ ‘ With the potential for conservative replacements for the liberal justices who could retire during the next president’s administration, it is quite possible that the Supreme Court could take a conservative leaning by effectively undoing the balance on significant issues such as abortion, funding for religious-related schools, civil liberties and private property. ‘ ‘ ‘ Unlike McCain, Obama has extensive legal experience and knowledge of the court system. Moreover, there are very few who are as qualified to appoint judges as Obama. Obama is a lawyer, and before his time in the Illinois State Senate, he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. In a New York Times interview, one of his former colleagues, Cass R. Sunstein, said that Obama ‘knows this stuff [law and legal issues] inside and out, and he has the credentials to be easily appointed to the Court himself.’ Although he has not committed to naming any particular people he would nominate to be a Supreme Court justice, when asked what he would look for in a Supreme Court Justice, Obama held up a picture of former chief justice Earl Warren. Warren led the Supreme Court in creating the landmark 1954 ruling that outlawed school segregation. It is Obama’s combination of legal experience and knowledge that make him the most qualified candidate to be able to appoint a judge to the Supreme Court. ‘ ‘ ‘ In July 2007, Obama said, ‘We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old.’ Although Obama is justified in arguing that any Supreme Court justice ‘mdash; whose job it is to interpret the Constitution and to protect the liberties that the document granted to the American people ‘mdash; be an empathetic person, capable of understanding the circumstances of less fortunate Americans, I believe that what Obama might have been implying is that it is crucial that the appointed judge be capable of adapting the principles of the Constitution to the issues facing Americans, not 250 years ago, but in 2008 and beyond. ‘ ‘ ‘ The framers of our Constitution, who were unquestionably brilliant men, together crafted one of the most exceptional pieces of literature in history, not to mention the framework for American democracy. However, their dispositions and beliefs were those of 18th century Americans. In the 21st century, events have forced or should force federal judges to adapt their interpretation of the Constitution so as to protect Americans with the fundamental rights to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ This entails protection from both social injustice and economic injustice, which continue to haunt American society. ‘ ‘ ‘ Many conservative scholars don’t regard the U.S. Constitution as a ‘living, breathing document.’ But shouldn’t it be treated as such? America is still a ‘living, breathing’ nation, one that is radically different from the America when the Constitution was first drafted, and its framework should be not be interpreted with an archaic, 18th century mindset, but with a progressive mindset capable of reflecting and responding to modern times. E-mail Shane at [email protected].