Editorial: Surrounding the open seat: Scalia’s death a time to reflect on political priorities

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the most influential and divisive people to ever sit on the bench, died Saturday. True to form, his death has left a wave of controversy in its wake.      

While Washington, D.C., begins to tie itself in knots over finding a replacement, Scalia’s death offers an opportunity to reflect on the relationship between regular Americans and our highest court. That relationship is, in a word, terrible. But it doesn’t have to stay that way.

According to a 2012 survey conducted by FindLaw, a popular legal information site operated by Thomson Reuters, only 1 percent of Americans could name all nine Supreme Court justices.

Sixty-six percent could not name a single justice, but of his colleagues, Scalia’s was the name most likely to appear to us in a headline.

Scalia served on the court for nearly three decades after President Ronald Reagan nominated him in 1986. Until his death, he was the longest serving of the current members. He was also notably the most vocal of the court’s conservative wing, relying on a textualist view of the Constitution to relate cases back to the the direct intentions of the founding fathers.

This approach, and the pointed writing and questioning that accompanied it, often earned Scalia the hatred of liberals. His forceful dissents in matters, such as the legalization of same-sex marriage and affirmative action, invited labels like “homophobe” and “racist.” He also supported landmark cases, such as Citizens United v. FEC, which effectively dismantled campaign finance regulations, and Bush v. Gore, which secured the election of George W. Bush. For all of the same reasons, many on the right considered him one of their greatest advocates.

Regardless of political affiliation, the social significance of each case should clearly demonstrate the power of the Supreme Court. The list above barely scratches the surface. The court’s decisions shape the lifestyles and freedoms of the nation, and understanding their implications is critical to understanding American ethics.

Following Scalia’s death, the court will operate with only eight members until the president nominates a replacement and the Senate confirms them. This leaves the door open to tied decisions, in which case the rulings of the lower court stand.

But that is an unacceptable reality considering the court’s upcoming caseload.

The highest profile case is President Obama’s immigration plan. If the court upholds it, the executive measure would shield more than 4 million undocumented immigrants from deportation. This term, the court will also consider changing the rules for how states and municipalities draw voting districts, allowing state governments to shape them based on the number of eligible voters, rather than total population. This would fundamentally shift how almost all non-federal elections operate.

The court could also change whether public sector unions can charge members for the cost of collective bargaining efforts even if they disagree with the terms. Additionally, there is a controversial Texas law that closed nearly all of the state’s abortion clinics, while another case features religious organizations fighting to be exempt from covering contraceptive health care products.

With high stakes for both parties, this should be a landmark year for the country. Unfortunately, there are threats from congressional Republicans to block any nomination until after the 2016 election in November. These tactics are, at best, irresponsible. At worst, they further undermine the country’s ability to function healthily.

While nothing in the modern United States escapes political influence, justices are meant to rule on legality, not partisan definitions of morality. To constrain their ability to do that because of an election year is indefensible.

As Scalia said at his granddaughter’s high school graduation in 2010, “More important than your obligation to follow your conscience, or at least prior to it, is your obligation to form your conscience correctly.” In this case, and most others, that means listening to the people. First, we have to give our leaders something to hear.

It’s time that all of us start paying more attention to the one branch of government we don’t elect. Calling on leaders to pass policies is one thing, but it is just as important that the public care about who decides the legality of those laws.

Just because there is no button to push in a booth, doesn’t mean you have no voice or reason to care.