2008: What's Next?
Monday December 31, 2007
See also: Top Civil Liberties Stories of 2007
If you had asked me on December 31st, 2006 what I expected out of 2007, I think I probably would have suggested a very actively left-wing Congress, a very actively right-wing executive branch, and a Supreme Court shifting significantly to the right. What we got, instead, was a timid and moderate Congress, an unpopular and impotent lame duck executive branch, and a Supreme Court that (fortunately) has only become a little bit more conservative.
So, despite predictions to the contrary, 2007 wasn't defined by new civil liberties policy. And 2008 probably won't be a red-letter year for civil liberties policy, either, given the elections--but it looks like it could become a monumental year for other reasons. By the end of 2008, all of these questions will be answered:
2008 will be the last year of the Bush administration, not counting the three weeks in January leading into the next presidential inauguration. By the end of the year there will already be a new president-elect, and the mood of the country will be changing. If history is any guide, President Bush will actually look older by the time the year is up. He'll sound more moderate. We'll wonder if he was really as bad as all that. People will be talking about the legacy of his administration. Iraq and Afghanistan will be central to that discussion. Civil liberties probably will not be. But there's still a little time left for the Bush administration to clean up some of the mess it has made.
I expect that it will be President Bush, and not his successor, who finally ends the Guantanamo Bay detentions. This will happen, by my reckoning, before the November 2008 presidential elections.
I expect that permanent revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act will be signed into law by the end of 2008, effectively ending the debate over warrantless domestic surveillance.
I expect that Attorney General Michael Mukasey will be the "good cop" to "bad cop" predecessors Alberto Gonzales and John Ashcroft, improving the public image of the Justice Department.
I don't expect a comprehensive immigration reform bill to be signed into law. The elections will preclude that option.
But the rest is all a mystery to me--and there will most certainly be a "the rest." There always is.
Related:
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Parker v. District of Columbia, a Second Amendment challenge to a new Washington, DC law banning handguns. It is the first time the Supreme Court has directly dealt with the Second Amendment since the convoluted and largely useless United States v. Miller (1939), and may represent the first time in U.S. history that the Supreme Court has actually put forth an internally consistent Second Amendment doctrine.
Related:
For the first time in decades, the end of 2007 brings us a United States with no death penalty in effect. The moratorium on lethal injection, pending the Supreme Court's upcoming ruling in Baze v. Rees, has put executions on hold throughout the country. Will lethal injection be abolished as a method of execution? If so, will other contemporary methods--the electric chair, hanging, the firing squad, and so forth--replace it, or will the death penalty be abolished altogether?
Related:
In 2012, Justice John Paul Stevens would turn 92, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 79, and Justice Antonin Scalia 76. While considerable attention is understandably given to Justice Stevens (Court-watchers have expected his retirement since the Clinton years), even justices Ginsburg and Scalia would be older than Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was when she retired. The next president will probably appoint at least one, and perhaps as many as three, new Supreme Court justices. The future of countless precedents, including Roe v. Wade, could easily be determined by the 2008 presidential election. While the U.S. Senate is likely to remain in Democratic hands for at least the duration of the next president's first term, it will not be able to select its own Supreme Court appointees. It can only vote up, or vote down, the president's selection.
The president's relationship with Congress will no doubt be relevant for other reasons as well. A Democratic Congress and Democratic president would be able to enact comprehensive immigration reform to address the citizenship status of 12 million undocumented immigrants living in this country today, and legislative achievements vis-a-vis lesbian and gay rights could be striking--federal hate crimes legislation, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, and an end to "don't ask, don't tell" would all be on the table. So, more problematically, could be repressive campaign finance reform and new gun control initiatives.
In contrast, a Republican president and Democratic Congress would look an awful lot like the final year of the Bush administration. Minimal damage to civil liberties by both parties, but no promising new policy initiatives, either.
For a variety of reasons--primarily the fact that Republicans held Congress for 12 years, and a Republican will have held the presidency for the past 8--I think our civil liberties will be better protected, all things being equal, by a Democratic president. But if you consider partisan gridlock a great deterrent to civil liberties abuses, and it can be, then electing a Democratic Congress and a Republican president would not necessarily be a disastrous proposition.
Related:
|
So, despite predictions to the contrary, 2007 wasn't defined by new civil liberties policy. And 2008 probably won't be a red-letter year for civil liberties policy, either, given the elections--but it looks like it could become a monumental year for other reasons. By the end of 2008, all of these questions will be answered:
How will the story of the Bush administration end?
2008 will be the last year of the Bush administration, not counting the three weeks in January leading into the next presidential inauguration. By the end of the year there will already be a new president-elect, and the mood of the country will be changing. If history is any guide, President Bush will actually look older by the time the year is up. He'll sound more moderate. We'll wonder if he was really as bad as all that. People will be talking about the legacy of his administration. Iraq and Afghanistan will be central to that discussion. Civil liberties probably will not be. But there's still a little time left for the Bush administration to clean up some of the mess it has made.
I expect that it will be President Bush, and not his successor, who finally ends the Guantanamo Bay detentions. This will happen, by my reckoning, before the November 2008 presidential elections.
I expect that permanent revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act will be signed into law by the end of 2008, effectively ending the debate over warrantless domestic surveillance.
I expect that Attorney General Michael Mukasey will be the "good cop" to "bad cop" predecessors Alberto Gonzales and John Ashcroft, improving the public image of the Justice Department.
I don't expect a comprehensive immigration reform bill to be signed into law. The elections will preclude that option.
But the rest is all a mystery to me--and there will most certainly be a "the rest." There always is.
Related:
Will the Supreme Court finally adopt a meaningful interpretation of the Second Amendment?
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Parker v. District of Columbia, a Second Amendment challenge to a new Washington, DC law banning handguns. It is the first time the Supreme Court has directly dealt with the Second Amendment since the convoluted and largely useless United States v. Miller (1939), and may represent the first time in U.S. history that the Supreme Court has actually put forth an internally consistent Second Amendment doctrine.
Related:
Will lethal injection still be used as a method of capital punishment?
For the first time in decades, the end of 2007 brings us a United States with no death penalty in effect. The moratorium on lethal injection, pending the Supreme Court's upcoming ruling in Baze v. Rees, has put executions on hold throughout the country. Will lethal injection be abolished as a method of execution? If so, will other contemporary methods--the electric chair, hanging, the firing squad, and so forth--replace it, or will the death penalty be abolished altogether?
Related:
Who will be the next President of the United States?
The most important question for the future of U.S. civil liberties may be the outcome of the 2008 presidential election.In 2012, Justice John Paul Stevens would turn 92, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 79, and Justice Antonin Scalia 76. While considerable attention is understandably given to Justice Stevens (Court-watchers have expected his retirement since the Clinton years), even justices Ginsburg and Scalia would be older than Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was when she retired. The next president will probably appoint at least one, and perhaps as many as three, new Supreme Court justices. The future of countless precedents, including Roe v. Wade, could easily be determined by the 2008 presidential election. While the U.S. Senate is likely to remain in Democratic hands for at least the duration of the next president's first term, it will not be able to select its own Supreme Court appointees. It can only vote up, or vote down, the president's selection.
The president's relationship with Congress will no doubt be relevant for other reasons as well. A Democratic Congress and Democratic president would be able to enact comprehensive immigration reform to address the citizenship status of 12 million undocumented immigrants living in this country today, and legislative achievements vis-a-vis lesbian and gay rights could be striking--federal hate crimes legislation, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, and an end to "don't ask, don't tell" would all be on the table. So, more problematically, could be repressive campaign finance reform and new gun control initiatives.
In contrast, a Republican president and Democratic Congress would look an awful lot like the final year of the Bush administration. Minimal damage to civil liberties by both parties, but no promising new policy initiatives, either.
For a variety of reasons--primarily the fact that Republicans held Congress for 12 years, and a Republican will have held the presidency for the past 8--I think our civil liberties will be better protected, all things being equal, by a Democratic president. But if you consider partisan gridlock a great deterrent to civil liberties abuses, and it can be, then electing a Democratic Congress and a Republican president would not necessarily be a disastrous proposition.
Related:
- Bill Richardson: The Best Civil Liberties Candidate for 2008
- Hillary Clinton on Civil Liberties
- John Edwards on Civil Liberties
- Rudy Giuliani on Civil Liberties
- Mike Huckabee on Civil Liberties
- John McCain on Civil Liberties
- Barack Obama on Civil Liberties
- Mitt Romney on Civil Liberties
Comments
No comments yet. Leave a Comment