Media Manipulation and Judicial Appointment Politics, Part 1 (Campaign 2008)
"In my first post for Britannica, I insisted that every major presidential candidate ought to deliver a speech on their view of the role of the presidency in the American constitutional system. Not one of them has taken me up on it (yet). That is disappointing, but not surprising.
Presidents and presidential candidates are disproportionately attorneys, but they are not very forthcoming about the big principles that they learned in their constitutional law classes. They only speak directly to constitutional questions when they are asked about appointing judges and justices, and this reticence reflects what I think is a disappointing turn in American politics, namely a growing sense that “constitutional” issues are of necessity relegated to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Presidential candidates act as though they shape the constitution only indirectly through their choice of judges to sit on the federal bench, even though presidents themselves create constitutional precedents all of the time. Furthermore, the rare discussions about the Supreme Court are often stunted by the misperception that justices only decide a very narrow range of cases that can be boiled down to yes-no positions.(...)" LINK
Comments