EDITORIAL- Aging Court may need new appointees

During arguments in court, he has to stretch. Such behavior would not be tolerated in Judge… During arguments in court, he has to stretch. Such behavior would not be tolerated in Judge Judy’s court, but in the U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist is allowed to do it. He suffers from back pains after surgery in 1995. He also had knee surgery in late 2002 to repair a torn tendon. The 80-year-old chief justice has recently been hospitalized and treated yet again — this time for thyroid cancer.

A chief justice’s health is not a matter to be taken lightly. According to director of the Johns Hopkins Thyroid Tumor Center and president of the American Thyroid Association, Paul Ladenson, Rehnquist underwent a tracheotomy — a procedure used only in unusual cases. The procedure was performed last Saturday, and Rehnquist plans to be back on the bench for the next public session on Nov. 1.

As the presidential campaign heads into its final days, Rehnquist’s illness raises questions about the future of the Supreme Court. Four of the nine justices are older than 70. It is probable that the next president will have to make some new appointments.

The war in Iraq will come to an end. But these Supreme Court justice appointments are for life. It will be many, many decades before an appointed justice dies. So, if the president appoints someone who is 50 years old in 2005, that person could very well be judging the constitutionality of laws for 40 years or longer.

Think that’s a stretch to scare you about the future? Think again. Supreme Court justices stay alive — that’s what they do. They stay alive long enough to make sure their work isn’t in vain. Conservative justices are hoping to see President George W. Bush take office in November just like liberal ones are waiting for a victory for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. And these justices can’t die until they get what they want: confidence in the next four years.

Keep that in mind while voting. The president appoints a justice, then Senate approves the decision. After that, there is hardly anything that can be done about the decision for approximately a half-century. The justices in the Supreme Court make history. The interpretations of laws that we are expected to abide by have been OK’d by the Supreme Court — even the embarrassing ones of our past like the notion that separate was, in fact, equal. (That was eventually overturned — yet another benchmark event in American history, thanks to a Supreme Court verdict.)

According to Cornell University’s Legal Information Institute Web site, the Supreme Court’s 2003-2004 ruling highlights include cases on First Amendment rights, executive power, telecommunications, employment and discrimination.

The president and Mrs. Bush wish Chief Justice Rehnquist a speedy recovery. After all, he’s got to be in court next Monday. When voters go to the polls next Tuesday, hopefully they’ll remember all the issues in this election — including the fact that the newly elected president has the responsibility of appointing Supreme Court justices.