Chief Justice William Rehnquist's death last Saturday ushered in a political transformation that is likely to be more significant and far-reaching than any of the elections, celebrity court cases or government decisions we focus on all the time. Why? This is a transformation that gets at the heart of who we are as U.S. citizens.
The United States is a country defined by its values. Fans laud us for ideals like "freedom," "individualism" and "social mobility." Critics complain about "greed" and "arrogance." Discussions of U.S. national policies almost always come back to assessments of national identity. And while policies may come from other branches of government that we elect and can influence, the social issues that determine our values are the domain of the Supreme Court, a slow-changing forum over which we have only an observer's control.
Until the mid-1960's, what it meant to be a U.S. citizen was all wrapped up in questions of race, and those questions went to the Supreme Court. Later, in the 1970s, what it meant to be a U.S. citizen depended on issues of gender and reproduction, terrain also covered by the Supreme Court. In the coming decades, as what it means to be a U.S. citizen revolves increasingly around social problems posed by new medical science, technology and sexuality, these questions too will fall to the Supreme Court - a court now slated for new leadership by the frustratingly tame John Roberts.
Roberts has certainly made Democrats work to find anything dramatically objectionable with him - his record is mild, his legal credentials solid. This is not to say he's a centrist - Roberts will be a conservative justice, no doubt. But his record reflects calculation, a respect for legal precedent and a stunning absence of controversial cases. His life story too is overwhelmingly safe - no reckless youth, outrageous choices or instances of boldly going out on a limb for a cause. He's an ode to deliberate, measured judgment, and it's working for him.
When leaders, voters and concerned parties on both sides of the political aisle stress about the dangerous see-saw status of the Supreme Court, while we all sigh in relief at the thought of a mild and benign justice to keep the Court in the happy land of informed moderation without a testy confirmation battle, I wonder: must moderates always be so meek? Why is everyone's favorite thing about John Roberts that we have so little to say? When did passionate political discourse become so inevitably vitriolic and unpleasant that we'd rather have nothing to talk about?
While a rationalist who will interpret rather than rewrite the Constitution is a good thing, perhaps one with a little more chutzpah could do the job better. Constancy is not the likely path this country will take - values will change, controversial social issues will be addressed and decided in landmark, nation-altering ways. The kind of moderate who can steward a court and a country through these changes (and at 50, Roberts is likely to be around for a lot of them) without letting us go off course is someone who is as strong and adamant about caution as his bench-fellows are about radicalism.
I'm no advocate of extremism, but I like to believe that truth and justice can be achieved as well by the passionate and inspired as by the bland and non-offensive. I am confident that moderation need not mean mediocrity; that a nation known for valuing individuals who take chances to advance their personal ideals is now turning to risk-free Roberts is a cause for alarm. The time to reclaim the place of honor once held by genuine debate in our national dialogue is now.
What we need is a Chief Justice with some personal grit. Still waters run deep, they say. Let us hope that John Roberts proves as deep as he is still, because in the big leagues of the Supreme Court, "affable" just isn't good enough.
Maha Atal '08 is wary of the frustratingly tame.
