Balancing justice

THE NEXT PRESIDENT could dramatically transform the shape and direction of the US Supreme Court, which is currently divided between conservative and liberal wings.

In the conservative wing are Chief Justice William Rehnquist (appointed by President Richard Nixon) and Justices Antonin Scalia (appointed by President Ronald Reagan) and Clarence Thomas (appointed by President George Bush). In the liberal wing are two appointees of President Bill Clinton's -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer -- as well as John Paul Stevens (appointed by President Gerald Ford). The swing justices are Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor (both appointed by Reagan) -- with David Souter (a Bush pick) ruling with the liberal wing somewhat more frequently. Of these justices, Rehnquist is 75 and Stevens is 79. And both Ginsburg and O'Connor have had brushes with cancer.

In a scenario in which only Rehnquist and Stevens stepped down -- and were replaced by conservatives -- the conservatives would hold a solid bloc of four. An exchange of even one more justice could ensure a five-person conservative majority.

Such a change would have a direct impact on many areas of law. So-called church-state cases have been sharply contested in recent years -- and cases involving abortion rights could also arise.

"I'm not sure the American people grasp the importance of the Supreme Court and how that plays out in the presidential election," says Robert Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "If Stevens steps down, a conservative replacement would solidify the conservative bloc."

A changed Supreme Court could have the biggest impact of all in cases involving the Internet and biotechnology, where the law has yet to catch up with technology.

When the Texas Supreme Court, where Bush has appointed four of the nine justices, ruled on an important case involving biotechnology, it came down in favor of big business and against the needs of a child with a genetic disease. The case, Provident American Insurance Co. v. Castaneda, involved an insurance company whose young client's uncle had been diagnosed with the same genetic disease that affected her. The court ruled that the company could decline to cover her costs on the grounds of the relative's diagnosis. In other words, the firm likened the uncle's genetic disease to a pre-existing condition of the child, and the court upheld that position. This is the very type of question that the Supreme Court could face in the next four years.

-- S.G.

---

Back to 'Who would Bush appoint?'

---