Nicely Timed, Mr Souter!

Justice David Souter's recent announcement that he wishes to step down from the U.S Supreme Court could scarcely have come at a better time for the Democrats. Just a few days ago, Senator Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania announced his decision to run as a Democrat in 2010, bringing the Democrat's official tally in the Senate to 59. With Al Franken the current favourite to win Minnesota's contested seat, the Democrats have the potential to get the 60 Senators they need for a filibuster-proof majority. Such a majority would give the Obama administration significant leeway in choosing their nominee with the potential to fill the vacancy with a strong liberal candidate. In doing so they could balance out the strong conservative presence of Justices Thomas and Scalia and give themselves a more sympathetic bench to work with over the next three-and-a-half years. Furthermore, knowing that Justice Ginsburg's retirement may not be far away (sadly, owing to being diagnosed with Pancreatic Cancer) President Obama may still have further opportunities to shift the balance of the court to the left.

Yet for all the possibilities that Obama's liberal base must be anticipating, there is a growing consensus that Souter's replacement won't be quite such a bold choice. Many who know Obama from his days as a Law Professor at the University of Chicago have said that he is unlikely to plump for an activist, though he is interested in finding the kind of person who appreciates the real-life consequences of Supreme Court decisions.

In his press conference to announce Justice Souter's retirement, Obama gave indications as to the kind of nominee he might be looking for. "Independent", having "the quality of empathy" and an appreciation for "constitutional values" were all significant indications and notably none of them indicates a shift to the left.

Certainly, the Obama administration will not have been surprised by this opportunity and may well already have a good idea of the names they want on the shortlist. Many are expecting a female nominee, and with good reason: 48% of law school graduates in the US last year were female and yet only 1 of the 9 seats of the highest court in the land is held by a woman. With that 1 likely to retire soon, also, we may yet see Obama appoint 2 women to the bench before the next elections.

It is certainly high time we saw more women sitting on the Supreme Court and minorities also, particularly given the high number of qualified candidates who would fit such a description. Nevertheless, in looking for a restrained centrist, I feel that the Obama Administration may be missing a significant opportunity to make a lasting impact in reversing the conservative nature of the court. Obama must surely understand the value of an active court in breaking political stalemates. Whatever reservations he may have about their lack of legitimacy, it would be naive to ignore the potential positives that could come with an active liberal on the bench. If he let's this opportunity pass, it could set back many of the causes he holds dear for decades.

ADJB

Gun Laws in America - Safeguarding the Right to Kill

On January 29th, 1979, 16-year-old Brenda Ann Spencer opened fire at Cleveland Elementary School in San Diego, California, killing the Principal and Head Custodian of the school, as well as wounding 9 others. When asked why she had done this, Spencer replied, "I don't like Mondays. This livens up the day." The rifle that she used was a Christmas present from her father, legally bought and given to her. Until the moment she pulled the trigger, Brenda was yet to commit a crime.

Just as shocking, however, is the fact that this kind of incident is commonplace in a country which endeavours to be the world's conscience. It is sad that such barbaric incidents should continue to occur, unabated, for fear of inciting the wrath of the gun lobby, but they do. When Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people and wounded many more at Virginia Tech in April 2007, in what was the deadliest shooting rampage in U.S history, the idea of banning guns was not even mentioned, let alone pursued.

What has surprised me most when broaching the subject with Americans (and progressives at that) was their response that "guns make people safer." It seems as if people have been told this for so long that it has come to be accepted as truth. When looking at the figures for gun deaths, however, this notion appears comical. If you combine the populations of the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, Spain, Canada and Holland, all of whom have strict gun laws, you get a population which is slightly larger than that of the United States: in 2002 (the most recent year for which I could find data) the aforementioned nations had a combined total of 1,793 gun deaths, whilst the U.S had 30,694. With 17 times the rate of gun deaths it is hard to argue that guns make people safer.

The electorate's lack of education on the issue is a symptom of the problem, though, rather than the cause. It is not apathy and support for the gun lobby that has made them such a powerful force, rather it is the gun lobby systematically stamping out opposition to it in Congress which has led us to this point. In 2004, the NRA had a total income of over $200 million. This money was used to finance attack ads against candidates who favoured greater restrictions on guns and to fund "public education intitiatives" which promote ideas, such as "guns make people safer." The Brady Campaign, the NRA's largest opponent, could only dream of having such resources.

Recently, the U.S Supreme Court overturned the D.C handgun ban by citing it as "unconstitutional", yet another setback in the fight to lower the rate of gun deaths in the U.S. The Supreme Court's decision was predictable, with the current balance of the court lurching so far to the right, but disappointing nonetheless. How either Spencer or Cho represented "well-regulated militia[s]" is beyond my reasoning but the Supreme Court certainly felt that their's was a cause worth protecting. How many more must fall before people take notice?

The end of this battle is nowhere near but I can only hope that politicians will suit up for it some time soon. Debate on this issue can only be a good thing since the facts are on our side. It has certainly been a long time coming.

ADJB