Former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhoftstadt wants a United States of Europe. He’s worth paying attention to—not only has he written a book about it, he is a front-runner to become the next president of the European Commission. A major proponent of greater European integration, he believes that a Europe that acts as one body is one that can lead effectively on the world stage. ‘[European governments] are still thinking that they can solve problems on their own. If you look to the problems—climate change, poverty, Africa, financial crisis. What can a nation state do? Nothing at all. They are global challenges and for global challenges you need global political bodies.’ This clear vision of the need for a European parliamentary democracy with executive powers and an elected President signals a radical shift from the conciliatory Lisbon Treaty—yet Verhofstadt would suggest that a shakeup is exactly what Europe needs. Many nations were unsatisfied with the compromise. Chief among Europe’s problems, as Verhofstadt sees them, is that there is no political majority. ‘We have only [a] majority based on topic… What we need is a classical majority of position, like you have in a national parliament.’
To most, Europe is seen as a fruitless maze of bureaucracy, fiddling with the small problems but never actually governing or accomplishing anything. It’s refreshing to see a European politician genuinely understand this frustration. Verhoftstadt highlights a question that many consider when it comes to European legislation—’Is it really necessary when you have an internal market that you prescribe precisely what champagne is, what chocolate is, what marmalade is?’
However, he advocates more regulation in other areas, suggesting a focus on what is important, without letting small, seemingly irrelevant details distract from the major issues. ‘At the other side Europe needs to be more involved in preparing, for example, strategy for a financial crisis and organising the financial markets. You need more regulation on some issues and less regulation on other issues. Europe is not enough a bureaucracy on a number of issues and too much of a bureaucracy on a number of other issues.’
It is clearly possible to disagree in principle with Verhofstadt’s stance on Europe, as many do. Yet he certainly has the evidence to support his case, and is not alone in seeing that greater integration would provide solutions to some of the more serious problems that individual nations within Europe face, as well as the EU as a whole. Throughout my time with him, he made his case clearly and convincingly, especially in his speech to CapitOx, focusing on his solution to the financial crisis.
It was the financial crisis that animated him most; one gets the sense that he views it as having provided an opportunity for drastic reform. Mr Verhofstadt’s fundamental belief is that the EU can only recover from recession with a united approach, and that what is being done currently is nowhere near enough. ‘The Americans are doing their job, I don’t see the same from the European side.’ For Verhofstadt, 27 individual national plans won’t work, and he argues that the current approach poses a major threat to European growth in the long term. ‘We need to be doing the exact opposite from what we’re doing today.’ Within three years he sees most of the rest of the world entering a period of growth again—Europe, without a universal plan, would be left far behind. This belief is also supported by the IMF who currently project a recovery to some degree for most of the rest of the world, with noticeable stagnation projected for Europe.
Small scale recovery plans are often ineffective, result in an unhelpful multiplication of priorities and a lack of international coordination can bring recovery plans into conflict, further limiting their effectiveness. ‘Europe’s success needs to be based on overcoming protectionism.’ He argues that unless we move forward from a determination to protect each nation with minimal regard for our neighbours we will severely limit the extent to which European economies can be strengthened. Central to Verhofstadt’s argument is the need for better regulation, and regulation that applies to an audience broader than just one country.
He concedes that worldwide regulation and organisation is not a realistic prospect. Nonetheless, he suggests that this is what would be most effective, proposing the IMF as the central body, though admitting that this would involve major changes in internal IMF politics. Clearly, Verhofstadt is a critic of regional control. Yet, should he get his United States of Europe, what would he do with it? First, he would develop a single European watchdog with new standards for financial products – ‘not more but better regulation’. Then, stress test all the banks, giving them ratings and with full transparency about their faults. Finally, he would recapitalize banks that need it. Startlingly similar to Obama and Geithner’s action plan in the US. And ‘how would we pay for this?’ being the inevitable question.
With ‘Eurobonds’. Verhofstadt proposes that these should be issued by a central European investment bank, and that by procrastinating on this we are ‘ignoring vast sums of capital’ that could be used to revitalise the European economy. China, for example, has a savings rate among the middle class of 24% (as opposed to Europe’s 15% or the US’s 4.2%), and there is currently little alternative to US Treasury bonds on the international scale. By providing an reliable alternative in which people can invest their savings, Eurobonds have the potential to begin resuscitating the European economy.
Highly critical of Jose Manuel Barosso, current President of the European Commission, Verhofstadt maintains that he has wasted his time in office. This is clearly an indication of what he would have done in office had he been successful in gaining the presidency in 2005, and what he is likely to do should he succeed Barosso. ‘He has not done what was necessary: to come up with one common strategy. He didn’t do it. People are saying now ‘maybe he’ll do it later on.’ He has had 5 years of time to do it. Too weak in my opinion.’
Verhofstadt is nothing if not an optimist. While in no denial about the grim financial state we’re in, he genuinely sees this as an opportunity. It can provide Europe with the impetus to radically change not only its economy but its outlook. He believes we need an increase in trans-European networks – in communication, transport and energy. It is our chance to develop a carbon free economy, an opportunity for Europe to pioneer and become a pioneering group—and there really is no limit. ‘Bretton Woods [the conference between major world powers following the war] was what in French we call a coup d’etat, by the Americans on the international financial system. Why not a Bretton Woods II for the Europeans where Europe and the European currency is the strongest group in the IMF?’
His optimism is infectious, and Verhofstadt provides, with compelling conviction, a clear plan for restoring long term growth to Europe and preventing another economic crisis similar to the one that we’re experiencing. This lucidity is something of a rarity at the moment. Take or leave his specific European ideals, but you can’t deny that there is an argument to be heard here, and we need to consider it seriously.
The United States Of Europe
Should We Ban the BNP?
Yes – Victoria Morrison
A student recently commented that ‘the Union had done nothing’ for students. They are right to a certain extent. The Union is not the body that helps keep rent rises low, improves academic conditions or ensures strong welfare support, and never will be. However, with 70% of undergraduates members, the Union has served an important role in expanding opportunities for the students of Oxford University through debates, speaker events and social occasions.
The Union are currently the British, European and World Debating Champions, with all of these student debaters trained by the Union—an incredible achievement for a number of individuals. This year alone in excess of 200 members have been taught how to debate, been given high quality feedback by more experienced debaters, and sent out to compete throughout the country.
Equally, we have offered the chance to hear and meet some leading figures in public life: Martin Sheen, John Hutton, Ben Fogle, Helen Fielding, Alex Shulman, Alan Johnston, Jonathan Davies and Aaron Sorkin, among many others. The variety of speakers appeals to anyone and everyone, regardless of their particular interests.
The applications for dinners and drinks have been opened up to all, genuinely allowing any member the chance to meet with the speakers on a more personal level—an incredibly popular measure that has been widely taken up by members.
Our weekly debates have exposed members of the university to expert opinions on challenging political and moral issues. A particular highlight this term was the motion on Assisted Suicide. The speakers in proposition included Dr Michael Irwin, a former UN Medical Director who offered an insight into his thirty year campaign for a change in the law, proposing to legalise assisted suicide. In opposition spoke Baroness Finlay, a practising palliative care specialist who offered a personal account of patients she has treated and how the option of assisted suicide creates a burden on patients to take their lives. A difficult topic, but one that was widely engaged with by members. The chance to interact with experts on a range of issues is one of the many opportunities the Union offers.
This term has also been successful behind the scenes. We won the battle to ensure the Women’s Officer is an advisor to the governing body. This demonstrates our commitment to addressing the under-representation of women in the Oxford Union and is something that will continue to be addressed in future terms. Equally, the newly created position of Steward will allow us to maintain longer term contacts, establish greater continuity between terms and therefore further improve the quality of speakers we bring our members.
The Union is not an island. We continue to work successfully with a number of societies to ensure that everyone has the best access to high profile speakers and debate. The Presidential candidates running for election are all excellent and demonstrate a commitment to the future success of the Union. Regardless of who wins, the Union will only go from strength to strength.
I encourage all members to vote in the elections for next term’s Officers and Committees, held in the Oxford Union on Friday, June 12th.
No – Josh Rhodes
In 1993 the Deputy Leader of the BNP was asked whether the party was racist. With disarming honesty, Richard Edmonds replied, ‘We are 100% racist, yes.’ Whilst the party may have moved on a little bit, its all-white membership policy reveals that maybe people have a point when they say that Griffin-ite moderation is all smoke and mirrors.
Having a look at current membership, there’s a stunning proportion with serious criminal offences behind them. Picking a local organiser at random, the BNP boss in Leeds has five convictions behind him, including both Actual and Grievous Bodily Harm. This sits well with leader Nick Griffin’s comments when the BNP got their first councillor in 1993: ‘The electors of Millwall did not back a postmodernist rightist party, but what they perceived to be a strong, disciplined organisation with the ability to back up its slogan ‘Defend Rights for Whites’ with well-directed boots and fists. When the crunch comes, power is the product of force and will, not of rational debate.’
And there’s the real issue. I’m all for defending free speech—for the most part. I cherish my right to be a little bit rude now and then. However, allowing a serious political platform for a party with an openly racist and violent ideology is something else. As much as it hurts to do so, I can put up with a lot of offensive BNP behaviour. Shoddy revisionist history is unpleasant, but in itself, not overly damaging.
The reduction of all non-whites to ‘permanent guests’ rather than citizens on the other hand? That presents a problem and not just to the dignity of individuals and communities, but to the fabric of society in general.
National politics ought to seek to maximise the benefit of society for all its members, whether native or otherwise. Political parties that explicitly undermine this policy and what this country stand for simply do not have a place here. At this point they are more harmful to society as a whole, and this poses a more immediate problem than the defence of free speech. When convicted criminals are using the charade of a legitimate political organisation to preach racism and hatred – whether white supremacy or otherwise—it is undeniable that the benefits of the political platform are being abused. Any thug who wishes to whip up a fervour ought not be afforded the luxury of these benefits and this is why the BNP must not be permitted to operate.
They are not a delicate voice that needs nurturing and protection, but represent an attempt to stifle the values that have led us to defend free speech in the first place: liberty, individuality and most importantly of all, equality.
The Union: A Presidential Roundup
A student recently commented that ‘the Union had done nothing’ for students. They are right to a certain extent. The Union is not the body that helps keep rent rises low, improves academic conditions or ensures strong welfare support, and never will be. However, with 70% of undergraduates members, the Union has served an important role in expanding opportunities for the students of Oxford University through debates, speaker events and social occasions.
The Union are currently the British, European and World Debating Champions, with all of these student debaters trained by the Union—an incredible achievement for a number of individuals. This year alone in excess of 200 members have been taught how to debate, been given high quality feedback by more experienced debaters, and sent out to compete throughout the country.
Equally, we have offered the chance to hear and meet some leading figures in public life: Martin Sheen, John Hutton, Ben Fogle, Helen Fielding, Alex Shulman, Alan Johnston, Jonathan Davies and Aaron Sorkin, among many others. The variety of speakers appeals to anyone and everyone, regardless of their particular interests.
The applications for dinners and drinks have been opened up to all, genuinely allowing any member the chance to meet with the speakers on a more personal level—an incredibly popular measure that has been widely taken up by members.
Our weekly debates have exposed members of the university to expert opinions on challenging political and moral issues. A particular highlight this term was the motion on Assisted Suicide. The speakers in proposition included Dr Michael Irwin, a former UN Medical Director who offered an insight into his thirty year campaign for a change in the law, proposing to legalise assisted suicide. In opposition spoke Baroness Finlay, a practising palliative care specialist who offered a personal account of patients she has treated and how the option of assisted suicide creates a burden on patients to take their lives. A difficult topic, but one that was widely engaged with by members. The chance to interact with experts on a range of issues is one of the many opportunities the Union offers.
This term has also been successful behind the scenes. We won the battle to ensure the Women’s Officer is an advisor to the governing body. This demonstrates our commitment to addressing the under-representation of women in the Oxford Union and is something that will continue to be addressed in future terms. Equally, the newly created position of Steward will allow us to maintain longer term contacts, establish greater continuity between terms and therefore further improve the quality of speakers we bring our members.
The Union is not an island. We continue to work successfully with a number of societies to ensure that everyone has the best access to high profile speakers and debate. The Presidential candidates running for election are all excellent and demonstrate a commitment to the future success of the Union. Regardless of who wins, the Union will only go from strength to strength.
I encourage all members to vote in the elections for next term’s Officers and Committees, held in the Oxford Union on Friday, June 12th.
No confidence in SEH bursar
A motion of No Confidence in Teddy Hall’s bursar was passed unanimously by the college’s JCR last Sunday.
The No Confidence vote passed following the amendment of a motion expressing general dissatisfaction of the JCR with the behaviour of the bursar Ernest Parkin.
The original motion criticised the policy of fining £20 on those not booking vacation accommodation by 5th week. When challenged by the JCR that this action was unjustified, the bursar claimed it was in the Teddy Hall rule book, which was later found out not to be the case. The bursar has since apologised.
The motion was described to be about “bursarial actions and attitudes, which have been in many ways disrespectful and secretive.”
Many students expressed feelings of resentment towards the bursar. Mark Mills, first year Teddy Hall student commented, “The motion passed nem com with no people against, so dissatisfaction was a reasonably held view.”
Julius Hugelshofer, a second year Philosophy, Politics and Economics student added, “There has been a feeling of unfair treatment on the side by the bursar and the staff. The motion was a spontaneous idea.
“The Bursar is part of the members of staff who are not very cooperative. He enjoys making life hard for us,” he added.
Charlotte Seymour, JCR president stated that significant progress has been made in rent accommodations, but a lot of hostility remains on both sides.
She said, “People were frustrated at feeling powerless in the face of these fines, particularly in having to deal with this sort of problem during finals.
Accommodation issues have been particularly difficult and arisen in the past, especially for some of the third- and fourth-years who have been there longer.”
The JCR President met Parkin on Wednesday to convey the JCR’s decision.
Some JCR committee members have suggested that the motion will not be effective. Environment and Ethics Officer Daniel Lowe said, “Given that we cannot force the resi
gnation of the Bursar, a motion of No Confidence will only serve to antagonise and it is my belief that it would be detrimental to future negotiations.”
“However, I do strongly believe that something needed to be done, that our views needed to be represented, only in a more productive fashion.”
Parkin refused to comment on the situation.
Holywell protesters speak up for refugees
Oxford students gathered on Wednesday night to protest against the treatment of refugees in Britain.
Members of Student Action for Refugees scaled walls on Holywell Street, attaching banners to Hertford bridge and the scaffolding outside the History Faculty Library on Broad Street.
The signs displayed a picture of Great Britain with barbed wire across it and the word “Sanctuary?” The protest was specifically aimed at the new detention centre that has just been approved in Bicester, just outside Oxford.
The banner was designed to catch people’s attention as they walked past. Elle Mortimer, one of the protesters who planned the event, commented, “We’ve had a lot of people asking us about it as they’ve walked home, and talking to us about the issue.”
She added, “It’s something that grabs attention. Protesting in the street obviously makes a difference, but we really wanted to do something original to make people think about an issue they probably haven’t thought about much before.”
Edgar Gerrard Hughes, another protested, commented, “The issue doesn’t get much press.”
STAR have been involved in similar protests, including the gagging of the stone heads outside the Sheldonian theatre last term. The students involved in the group have faced criticism as well as interest about their protests.
Mortimer commented, “We’ve had a lot of people telling us that they should all be locked up, although the people that say this tend not to be students. Students seem to be more receptive.”
Britain’s immigrant det
ainees now add up to well over three thousand, and there are government plans to increase detention capacity by 60%. The planning permission to build a centre outside Bicester was recently approved. This will hold 800 men, making it the largest in Europe.
One STAR member commented, “The men there are young and ambitious. Having risked everything in leaving their homes, all they want to do is build a life here. Instead they find themselves forgotten in the system.”
The protest was part of a series of events taking place this term to raise awareness of the living conditions of refugees in the United Kingdom. Refugee Week is a national event taking place this year between the 15th and the 21st of June.
The week is being celebrated in Oxford with student groups such as Student Action for Refugees, Asylum Welcome, Amnesty and Liberty. Events include a special football match and a poetry event.
Mortimer explained that the week was important in raising awareness of an issue that she believed to be often misunderstood. “It’s about celebrating what refugees have brought to this country.”
Keble boys cause college ruckus
Keble College rugby team are facing disciplinary action after wreaking havoc at St Peter’s College during a crew date.
The event was held between the Keble team and the St. Peter’s girls’ drinking society, Vagina Dentata.
After spending the evening in St. Peter’s bar, members of the rugby team then went on to urinate in the college memorial garden and verbally abused members of the college, and members of the public. According to an email circulated around the JCR, the team are also accused of “treating college property with a lack of respect”, with particular relation to an incident where a disabled tutor’s bicycle was knocked over and college flower beds were unsettled.
One St. Peter’s student commented that it was the incident involving the bike which “caused the most upset in the college.”
She added, “Apart from that, it was just drunken behaviour.”
Sanjay Nanwani, St. Peter’s JCR president, described the incident, saying, “A crew date of sorts went out of hand last Friday when a group of Keble students turned rowdy and began to engage in what they themselves have acknowledged to be offensive, disruptive and unacceptable behaviour.”
However, many members of the college are still unsure as to exactly what damage was caused.
Nanwani commented, “I haven’t heard any consistent version of events and nothing has been officially verified.”
The Keble team have issued a formal apology including flowers to members of St. Peter’s college, including the JCR, the porters, members of the decanal team and the tutor who owned the bicycle.
St Peter’s JCR passed a motion to accept the team’s apology and pursue them for the costs of any damage caused, with Nanwani saying, “It is my belief that the Keble students are truly remorseful and accept full collective responsibility for their actions.”
The motion submitted to the JCR acknowledged, “On the phone, the organiser of their group emphasised that at the time they did not realise the implications of their actions, namely that it was the bike of a man otherwise immobile, and that the garden was a memorial.”
He added, “Although I replied that it is still unacceptable to behave the way they did, ignorant or not to the extent of their affliction, this should be taken on board.”
Zain Talyarkhan, Keble JCR president, commented, “I’ve spoken personally to all the individuals who were involved in the incidents at St. Peter’s. They are all extremely sorry for their behaviour and have made personal apologies to those affected by their unacceptable actions.”
He added, “They are all facing serious disciplinary actions within the College and so I am satisfied with the result. The JCR condemns their actions and we hope nothing like this will occur in future.”
Students at St. Peter’s college are also facing disciplinary action because they did not inform the college that the crew date was going to take place. One female student said, “There has been disciplinary action taken, but it’s not too serious.”
Make it New
Ezra Pound once wrote that ‘any work of art which is not a beginning, an invention, a discovery is of little worth.’ With this, he laid down an arresting challenge, which I wish to consider in relation to a subject I am currently much concerned with – the revival of old plays.
I am currently directing a production of Hamlet (Wadham Chapel, 8th week), and the need to ‘make it new’, as Pound termed it, has been a central concern in rehearsals. A problem that increasingly besets Shakespeare as he is buried ever deeper in hagiography (to which this, hypocritically, adds) is that he is very, very well known. Surprise is a difficult thing to generate when everyone knows the ending – the twists and turns of the narrative can’t be relied upon alone. And yet surprise intensifies emotion; and dramatic tension, the gathering momentum that coheres a play, is heightened by uncertainty. Surprise makes for good plays. It’s obviously a good thing that Shakespeare is widely read; but it causes a problem for productions of him, that exists entirely outside of the text – a conditioning culture that perhaps cannot be as easily excited by Hamlet as they might be if they could encounter it without preconditionings.
My production is interested in this problem. We are doing Hamlet, one of the most famous, widely known and revived plays in English, because it’s brilliant; but we also want to stage a beginning, an invention, a discovery. Of course, we’re engaged in a slightly different process to the one Pound was writing about, because revival is re-imagination, not original composition. But Shakespeare wasn’t. He was writing something strikingly new. To be faithful to that spirit, we have tried during rehearsal to draw something provocative out of the text. In the firm belief that Shakespeare is bigger than all of us, that you can find almost anything in him if you look for it, we have tried to pattern our production with surprises.
In a sense, this Hamlet wants to challenge: by cutting characters, re-imagining sequences and generally translating the play into what will hopefully resemble a distinct version, it wants to get a response. But all this sacrilege is just a way of being faithful to a spirit that I believe lies behind this play, which after all is about the frightening, and the unknown. The version of Hamlet I am putting together is a love letter to a text far larger than any production of it: it’s just why I love Hamlet. If you come to the play, I will be pleased if you like it, and find it fresh; but I’ll probably be glad if you disagree with it as well, because then, we’ll have prompted you into determining why and how you love this enormous, marvellous play. I don’t think anyone should ever put on ‘old plays’; I think that the only way theatre works is if it’s part of a live conversation, between the bodies on stage and the minds in the audience: if it’s a beginning, an invention, a discovery.
Friday Night with The Saturdays
Amongst what seemed to be a giant school trip sat me wondering what all the fuss was about. Surrounded by little girls in what can only be described as carefully planned ‘outfits’, there sat a lonely elderly gentleman in a black leather jacket, dead-centre with the best view. ‘Perhaps he is here to see his granddaughter perform’, I thought, thinking the best of him. Positioned on the stage was a solitary stool and guitar, eagerly awaiting to be played, but by whom? Surely there won’t actually be any “real” musicians at this show, t’would not be normal in this modern age of pop performers!
Soon after this confusion had reached it’s peak in my mind, on walks a brigade of hip and hop body-rockers, headed by Miss Pixie Lott herself, wearing what might be termed a disco-ball swimming-costume. Her endless bare legs were sure to make the elderly gentleman’s ticket price seem like good value as she marched fourth to take position, although he may have been a little disappointed that the usual theatre binoculars were not available to rent. At her side were two rather street wise young ladies dressed head to toe in black, baggy, comfort clothes, not wanting to distract from Pixie of course, but for me were a highlight of the entire event, their style and dance moves were almost too cool for school, and if I’m honest a little part of me wished they were my friends. Pixie’s set was very dynamic, filled with her most well known tracks including her latest single ‘Mama Do’ which was very well received by the crowd, and even I found myself joining in with her clapping hands actions.
Remember that solitary guitar and stool at the edge of the stage? Well all was revealed when a young man walked on to accompany Pixie with a few acoustic numbers, which brought a nice mellow mid way break to her set. After the young man had earned his dinner with his finger picking wizardry, it was back to the boom-boom. All in all I was rather pleased with Pixie, I was just impressed that she sang live to be honest, and she wasn’t the only one…
After the interval, it was clear that the excitement had began to overpower the majority of the crowd as they rushed to their feet when the music began and the curtain came up. Much to my surprise, I saw not the Saturdays but a bunch of rather strapping men bearing instruments strut on stage. A live band; what a treat! The Saturdays slowly emerged from their epic theatrical set, which included an elevated platform from which stairs descended in front of a city-scene back-drop and a rather large TV screen, upon which featured “arty” visual delights, very much like those offered by Windows Media Player. Off to the side of the stage, was one of the band members sat upon a stool with a rather unfortunate broken ankle. She wouldn’t be shakin’ her booty.
Throughout their performance they did have a few costume changes, which were all variations on a theme in their own individual Saturdays colours. The highlight of their set was a medley of classic and current pop tunes which included ‘Shutup and Drive’, ‘I Kissed a Girl’ and ‘So What’. It was very well executed and I give them all due credit for singing live, and surprisingly in tune. Not only did they show off their vocal talents, but two of the members also picked up guitars and played along to their own songs that they claimed to have written while on the road. They were no Jonas brothers, (who, lets face it, are pretty rockin’) but nevertheless competent enough to add their own creative touch to the rendition. Towards the end of their set was shown video footage of the girls’ hilarious antics, recorded by them while on tour. It really gave us an insight to the girls’ personalities and provided an opportunity to feel closer to them. After this they banged out their most well known tracks, including “Issues” and the Comic Relief one, I forget the name.
This brought the set to an end and the girls walked (and hobbled) off stage, and then rather annoyingly messages such as “do you want more?” followed by “scream” which was then rounded off with “louder!” appeared on the big TV screen. I thought it was quite fun to begin with, but after the continuous repetitions, I really did want to scream, out of desperation. The girls came on and did two more numbers as an encore, which left the audience applauding on their feet, not exactly a standing ovation as we were all stood up from the beginning, but it’s always good to start as you mean to go on I suppose.
Cullen to preside over the Union
Stuart Cullen has been voted on Friday to be the next president of the Oxford Union. He garnered 628 votes.
In his manifesto, Cullen described himself as a person who is “serious, fair, has a proven track record and will keep the Union on the right path.”
The role of treasurer will be taken by Ash Sangha, whilst Lou Stoppard will be the society’s secretary.
The turnout for the elections was 1117.
5 Minute Tute: The US Supreme Court
Why are the Supreme Court nominations important?
Just look at the Bush vs Gore (2000) decision or the murder of Dr George Tiller last weekend. The Supreme Court has carved out a very significant role (not given to it explicitly in the constitution of 1787), and decides many (but by no means all) political questions in the US – the constitutionality of abortion restrictions, the death penalty, affirmative action and presidential privilege to name just a few. Nominating a middle aged judge to the Court (with no retirement age) therefore provides presidents the potential to indirectly shape policy beyond their term in the White House and even beyond the grave. Nominations must also however be seen as a hurdle over which a president must stride. Part of the importance of this nomination stems from the delicate point of his presidency that Barack Obama finds himself at. A failed nomination would affect his personal prestige and therefore his chances of passing healthcare reforms and bank regulatory changes.
What has been Sonia Sotomayor’s track as a judge?
Her most famous case to date involved issuing the preliminary injunction to break the 1994 Major League Baseball Strike. In doing so Sotomayor came down on the side of players (and fans) over owners winning instant, if short lived, public recognition. More recently she decided in Ricci vs DeStefano (2008) on the very sensitive issue of affirmative action. The ruling in DeStefano went against a white fire-fighter who claimed that he had been passed up for promotion on grounds of race. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals (which, if successfully confirmed, Sotomayor is leaving) ruled that the fire department was in fact fulfilling its obligations under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Will she be confirmed by the Senate?
Recent nomination hearings have gone smoothly once it has been established that the candidate is at least qualified for the position of Supreme Court Justice (see Bush 43’s failure to get Harriet Miers confirmed). Sotomayor’s biggest remaining danger is a filibuster from the Republican minority in the Senate (still 59-40 to the Democrats until the Minnesota senatorial election is settled). Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary committee, has indicated that there will not be this kind of filibuster.
What does the nomination of Sotomayor mean for diversity?
This is the tricky issue of whether this is the first nomination of a Latino to the Supreme Court. Republican talking-heads have been trying to put a dampener on the nomination by pointing out that Benjamin Cardozo (a clue is in the name) has a good claim to being the first Latino Supreme Court Justice. Appointed in 1932 by Herbert Hoover, Cardozo had Portuguese grandparents. In any case if Sotomayor is nominated it will mean that the Court has no less than six Catholic Justices. This nomination appears to be a handy way to consolidate Latino votes for the Democrats, in states like Florida, Colorado and New Mexico which swung to the Democrats in the 2008 Presidential Election, or Nevada where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid looks to be in trouble for 2010. However It is worth remembering that Stateside Puerto Ricans (Puerto Rico is part of the US), of which Sotomayor is one, are concentrated on the east coast.
How much would Justice Sotomayor affect the Court’s decisions?
The first question to ask in this situation is who is she nominated to replace? She is replacing David Souter who has been a reliable liberal vote. In this light Bush 43’s last nomination — Samuel Alito to Replace Sandra Day O’Connor — seems much more important. On the all important issue of state abortion restrictions (deemed unconstitutional in Roe vs Wade (1973), a decision which has been slowly rolled back) it looks as if Sotomayor has little form. Her decision in Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush (2002) concerns a different constitutional principle. Supreme Court justices also have a habit of going native once appointed. Not least the retiring Souter, who conservatives consider to be Bush 41’s worst mistake, after he turned out to be a liberal stalwart. Most famous is the case of Earl Warren who was a Republican governor of California appointed to the court by Dwight Eisenhower, and who went on to orchestrate, as Chief Justice, the most liberal period of decision making in the court’s history. Only Sonia Sotomayor knows how she will play things.
Tom Lubbock and Andrew Stockley are running a seminar series in Michaelmas Term.
‘Lessons in Government’ has confirmed speakers including Sandra Day O’Connor, Alan Johnson and Lord Phillips (the Lord Chief Justice).