Talk of the Town - Judgment call July 22 2000

Thirty days from now we will know George W. Bush and Al Gore a little bit more than we do today. The Democratic and the Republican conventions will be over — after having likely enjoyed the smallest viewing audience in our 50-year television history. Bush will define himself. Gore will do likewise. For a week or so after the GOP convention, Bush will benefit from a courtesy bump in the polls, briefly giving him a double-digit lead. Then it’s likely the presidential contest will even out as we approach Labor Day and the real campaign.

Come autumn, what has been up to now a real snore-a-thon should evolve into a lively debate on the future of the country. Despite what Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader would have you believe, there is a real philosophical difference between the elephant and the donkey. Although Bush and Gore appear to be relatively non-threatening, middle-of-the-road candidates, dig down a little deeper and a huge issue emerges: the future makeup of the federal judiciary and U.S. Supreme Court.

If Americans in their wisdom elect Bush, say good-bye to a woman’s right to choose. Bush has made it clear that he’s more aligned with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell than with GOP New Jersey Gov. Christie Whitman when it comes to abortion. Bush may not come out publicly with a specific plan to appoint anti-choice Supreme Court justices, but watch his eyes when he talks about judges: He’s got that look his father had when he appointed Clarence Thomas.

Not only will the next president have the opportunity to appoint as many as three new Supreme Court justices, but scores of federal and appeals court judgeships — whose appointments have been blocked by the GOP Congress — are also at stake. Through his actions, Bush has already colluded with right-wing Sen. Jesse Helms to block moderate and progressive Clinton federal court appointees, including the bid to place a very well-qualified Texas Hispanic attorney, Enrique Moreno, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

Bush’s potential power to appoint judges should itself be enough to mobilize women, minority and gay voters like never before. For those who believe in affirmative action, equal pay for equal work, environmental justice, sensible gun laws, the First Amendment and a plethora of other cherished American ideals, the frightening prospect of Jesse Helms and Orrin Hatch wielding veto-power over federal judges is justification to mobilize millions in a determined get-out-the-vote effort.

Political analysts point out that the issue of judgeships alone usually doesn’t sway voters.

This year may prove the exception to the rule. Up until now, there has been a real voter complacency, with only plugged-in political junkies paying any heed to Bush or Gore.

But after the conventions, that will change. Democrats are going to have to hit hard on the courts issue. For a period far exceeding the term of the next president, whoever that may be, U.S. courts will be entrusted to decide the major questions facing our nation. And the delicate balance on key issues that have changed America for the better could well shift dramatically.

The mood of the nation appears, as it always does at this juncture of the presidential campaign, to revolve around the economy and “me” issues. Gore has not exactly set his base on fire, while Bush has ignited his core. The real test of Gore’s leadership and his ability to win in November rests on his ability to define himself: The issue of judicial appointments is one area that clearly sets the nominees apart.

Houckline: Call, 404-614-1886; e-mail, thouck@mindspring.com