Sunday, June 26, 2005

Supreme Court set for momentous day tomorrow

The Washington Times reports that the Supreme Court is expecting a big day tomorrow:

::::::::The Supreme Court ends its work tomorrow with the highest of drama: an anticipated retirement, a ruling on the constitutionality of government Ten Commandments displays and decisions in other major cases.

Traditionally, there is an air of suspense as the justices meet for the final time before breaking for three months. Justices usually wait until then to resolve blockbuster cases.

Added to that is the expectation that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist is presiding over the court for the last time. Chief Justice Rehnquist has thyroid cancer and many court experts believe his retirement is imminent.

Should be an interesting day. There's been some talk flying around that the retirement we're going to hear about isn't Rehnquist's but Sandra Day O'Connor's. I was a little curious about that until I read that she's 75 years old. And she's not the oldest. Rehnquist is 80 and John Paul Stevens is 85. Forgive me, and I'm sure I'm going to catch it in the teeth from AARP over this, but considering that we mandate retirement in other fields at 65, what the hell is someone 20 years older than that doing ruling on the most important cases of our Nation in the most powerful court in the land? If these people in the black robes were exhibiting some signs that their age made them more likely to ignore the social engineering fads of the day and less likely to ignore the Constitution, as written, I'd have no issue with them. Clearly, age doesn't impart that kind of stability of judgement. Maybe that's something we should be adding to our judicial system: a mandatory retirement age.