news-record.com

Barack Obama and John McCain agreed on at least one thing in Wednesday night's debate: The next president of the United States will have an enormous impact on who will sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Elections have consequences," McCain said, referring to a president's role in nominating Supreme Court justices. Obama said the court's makeup will be "one of the most consequential decisions of the next president."

Yet voters seem unconcerned. Despite the sound and fury of this endless election season, the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court has stayed beneath the radar. Most surveys find that voters seldom mention new court appointments as a crucial issue. An ABC/Washington Post poll conducted last month found that voters did not even rank the federal judiciary among the 20 most important issues facing the nation.

The presidential debate on Wednesday night may -- and should -- wake up voters. The next occupant of the Oval Office will likely have the chance to put new faces on the Supreme Court because several older justices are thinking of retiring. The current court is dominated by five conservatives and four liberal/moderate justices. Many cases are decided by a 5-4 vote.

To his credit, moderator Bob Schieffer made the federal judiciary a topic in Wednesday night's debate. The two candidates hold starkly different views about Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision legalizing a woman's right to have an abortion. McCain wants to overturn Roe v. Wade; Obama wants to maintain it.

Chances of having new appointees on the court are considerable. The Associated Press points out that five justices are 70 or older. They include two and possibly three who may retire during the next presidency. Justice John Paul Stevens, 88, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75, are said to be thinking of retiring. If so, they comprise half the liberal wing of the court. Justice David Souter, another moderate, is reportedly considering retirement, too.

Thus the next president may get the chance to nominate three new justices, who will presumably reflect that president's ideology. The makeup of the U.S. Senate after the November election will be crucial because the Senate must confirm judicial appointments.

McCain, who is not a lawyer, said that if he is elected president, he would "never impose a litmus test" on his court appointees to determine if they agree with his opposition on Roe v. Wade. McCain said he believed in a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution.

Obama, who has a degree from Harvard Law School and formerly taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, gave a more nuanced answer but said he, too, opposes a litmus test.

Both candidates are stretching the truth when they disavow "litmus tests." Obama and McCain would undoubtedly appoint judges who reflect views similar to their own. That is what most presidents do, including President George W. Bush. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both Bush appointees, are conservatives like the president who nominated them.

"The Supreme Court is on the ballot this year," Kathryn Kolbert, president of People for the American Way, recently said in a statement to the media.

Not only is the Supreme Court on the ballot, so is the federal judiciary as a whole. There are 44 district and appellate judgeships waiting to be filled, and more will become vacant as judges retire or die. President Bush has appointed more than 300 federal judges during his two terms.

For now, voter attention is focused on the turbulent economy, the war in Iraq and other hot issues. The federal judiciary is back-burner. Yet the next president's judicial appointments will shape the laws of the land for decades to come. Voters must wake up.

Rosemary Roberts writes a Friday column. E-mail: rmroberts@triad.rr.com.