Strict Scrutiny

When Brian Williams asked the candidates last week, at the the Democratic Presidential Debate, who their favorite Supreme Court Justice was, I thought it was random, funny, and a totally nerdy question I would love. Who knew that it would be stirring up so much news in little Democratic circles.

Former New Mexico Bill Richardson went first. He said Justice Byron "Whizzer" White (the studly many to the left), someone who was appointed by JFK and was a running back at University of Colorado. Apparently, a very unacceptable answer for Dems.

Though Justice White voted to strike down the law banning contraceptives (Griswold v. Connecticut), was one of the few justices who thought that gender discrimination should be subject to strict scrutiny (Frontiero v. Richardson), voted to strike down the death penalty (Furman v. Georgia), voted to uphold affirmative action (UC Regents v. Bakke, and others), Justice White still doesn't have street cred amongst Democrats. Why? Among his 994 decisions while he was one the Supreme Court, one of his opinions was dissenting in Roe v. Wade.

Admittedly, Richardson did a horrible job clarifying his anwer. Apparently when he was asked about it later, he said "White was in the 60s. Wasn't Roe v. Wade in the 80s?" which is wrong on both parts.

But I use Bill Richardson as a neutral example, someone I don't love or hate, of how we the people want candidates to be real but then nitpick at all their answers. Justice White was probably the first Justice who came to his mind, doesn't mean it's a subconcious slip revealing that would appoint a pro-life Justice to the Supreme Court if he were elected. As far as I know, Bill Richardson is clearly pro-choice. Not to mention, the 2nd Supreme Court Justice he cited was Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a champion for women's rights and one of the few dissenters in the recent decision striking down partial birth abortion...but no one talks about that part of his answer.

Though Bill Maher's a little more out there politically than me, one of his "New Rules" a few weeks back sums up well the problems with how people view candidates:

New Rule: There's more to being smart than just not misspeaking. The world is a complicated place. Sometimes it all feels like a runaway train of violence, resentment and insecurity - sort of like a family reunion at Ryan O'Neil's place. Which is why for this next election, we need to pick the smartest candidate, not the dullest one who simply never had a verbal gaffe and said a wrong word or phrase. We're a superpower, not a drinking game. It has to be about leadership, not just hitting your buzzer first and remembering to phrase your answer in the form of a question. [the rest of the rule can be found here]

I don't think the electorate should lower their standards in picking a quality candidate, I just think that people need to realize that candidates aren't perfect. If we scrutinize every word they say, of course they're going to come out with canned, non-controversial answers, that we've heard a million times so they avoid nasty blogs, overblown stories on the 24 hour news cycle, or youtube videos being forwarded around. I don't think any influential past President, Democrat or Republican, could meet these lofty demands that have little to do with how someone will actually govern.

Off to bed before my Constitutional Law final where I'll actually have to write real things about all the cases I cited above.