by Matt Barr

Fabulous parting gifts?

What do you get, really, out of your choice to sit on the Supreme Court? Todd Zywicki wonders:

[I]s there any evidence that Supreme Court nominations actually result in any political gain? For instance, is there any evidence that Reagan's appointment of O'Connor has actually made women more likely to vote Republican? Or that Clarence Thomas's appointment helped Bush with black voters? Or that Scalia's appointment as the first Italian-American increased the Italian-American vote for Republicans? (I'm actually serious about this one--some of the Nixon tapes reveal that Nixon considered appointing an Italian-American, Polish-American (for obvious reasons, Nixon's mention of "a Pole" sticks in my head), or similar "ethnic" American to the Court for these political reasons). Or that appointing the promised southerner Powell, had any positive impact for the Republicans in the South?...

Recall that when last confronted with a similar monumental choice, President Bush ignored the conventional wisdom when he chose Dick Cheney as his running mate. In that choice, I think that Bush probably was aware that even though the conventional wisdom was that there is all kinds of political calculations in picking a VP, it is my understanding that there is little empirical support for the proposition that the VP choice makes much of a political difference.

I think this is a terrific observation. Does the appointment of a Supreme Court justice really score you (or even cost you!) any political points?

Zywicki is looking for genuine empirical evidence one way or another, and I don't have any, so I'll just talk out of my-- er, speculate. I think you can score political points by getting your opponents to oppose somebody -- maybe the question isn't so much whether nominating O'Connor or Thomas did Reagan or Bush any good, did Democratic opposition (mostly to Thomas) do the Democrats any damage? Fast forward, and will putting Democrats in a position to oppose the first Hispanic nominee do them damage? (Or a September 11 widower?)

That's cynical, of course, but it seems to me that there is no, at least immediate, advnatage to a Republican nominating a woman or minority. There may though be a problem for Democrats who attack the nominee.

This may be doubly true now, when the conventional wisdom says Democratic "obstructionism" cost them a leader and seats in the Senate in 2004. If it can be impressed on the electorate that Democrats will oppose anybody the President nominates, that might have traction in 2006.

Me, I want a good Justice, and wish none of this political calculus were involved. But I think it will be.

Browse books from Amazon.com: