This weekend when I was clearing out book shelves, trying to make room for new volumes, I discovered a little book about Arizona’s distinctive state Capitol and copper dome. I had bought it years ago when I was researching Sandra Day O’Connor. I believed her tenure as a state senator in the 1970s was critical to understanding the justice who so skillfully counted votes among the brethren, and I had gathered all I could find about Arizona state politics and the legislature during her time there. I somehow found even the architecture of the Capitol intriguing.
Before Sandra Day O’Connor was a Supreme Court justice or even an Arizona state court judge, she was an elected legislator and often talked about women and political power. In the 1970s, when she was in her early 40s, O’Connor would echo anthropologist Margaret Mead, “If women want real power and change, they must run for public office and use the vote more intelligently.” Years later, as O’Connor was nearing the end of her 25 years on the bench, she wrote, “Power [is] the ability to do. For both men and women, the first step in getting power is to become visible to others – and then to put on an impressive show.”
I know exactly where I was when I first saw the headline of an ABC news story earlier this month that said, “White House Prepares for the Possibility of Two Supreme Court Vacancies.” I was in the San Francisco radio studio of Ronn Owens about to go on the air to talk about Justice Scalia, the Citizens United case and current term. Owens said the ABC story had just appeared on-line that February 4 morning and predicted the retirement subject would draw calls. “Two vacancies?” I said doubtfully. “Really?” As people who have since read the posting by longtime ABC producer Ariane de Vogue know, it said: “Court watchers believe two of the more liberal members of the court, justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, could decide to step aside for reasons of age and health.”
I received enough reaction from the post on that snowy February 10 regarding whether journalists should call law clerks for information that I have a sequel. (See “But Would the Supreme Court Law Clerk Have Taken My Call?”)
The week is about to end without a ruling from the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, regarding governments’ authority to regulate corporate and labor union spending in elections. Both sides have been anxiously awaiting a decision in the case that was argued last September and could affect big-money expenditures in this fall’s mid-term elections and all future races.
So sure were many campaign experts that the ruling was coming this week that they deluged reporters with notices of planned teleconferences and statements of how significant the decision was likely to be.