"This can solve the fate of America." The struggle for the US Supreme Court

On July 9, US President Donald Trump intends to announce a candidate for a member of the country's Supreme Court, who was released after retirement Anthony Kennedy. The struggle for the appointment of a new judge may turn into the largest political confrontation in recent years in the United States, in the center of which there will be an investigation of Russian intervention in the American electoral process, the fate of women’s right to abortion and other issues fundamental for the future of the country.

The coming to the court of the conservative judge appointed by Trump will almost certainly shift the balance of opinions in court for many years to the right

An unexpected retirement of Anthony Kennedy caused an undisguised panic in the ranks of prominent democrats. In the nine members of the Supreme Court, Kennedy belonged to the role of a “hesitation”, who, being a man of conservative beliefs, nevertheless, often adjoined the four liberal judges. It was his voice, for example, that determined the outcome of several cases that led to legalization of same -sex marriages or confirmation of women's right to abortion. The arrival of a conservative judge appointed by President Trump will almost certainly shift the balance of opinions in court for many years to the right. Prominent democrats urged the president to refrain from appointing a candidate for a judge to the autumn elections to Congress in order to give the opportunity to speak out about this to voters. Say, there is a high probability that voters will give the majority in the Senate to the Democrats in order to prevent the appointment of a conservative member of the Supreme Court, since most Americans do not accordingly with an attempt to take the country to the right. President Trump dismissed this requirement of the Democrats.

Anthony Kennedy goes to court

However, presidential opponents insist that the investigation of Russian intervention in the American presidential election creates a serious legal and political dilemma: the president appoints a judge who, with a high degree of probability, will have to answer unprecedented questions about constitutional prerogatives and powers of the president in a very near future. For example, is the president obliged to testify to a large jury of the jury in connection with the “Russian” investigation, is it possible to make criminal charges the current president, does the president have the authority to have mercy on himself? The Democrat Senator Richard Blumenol said in a television interview that the judge appointed by President Trump should at least be herself if such cases reach the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the Republicans urge Donald Trump to fulfill what many voters voted for him in the election, and without looking at critics to appoint a lawyer who will adhere to conservative principles as members of the Supreme Court.

As the employee of the Guuver Institute in California, Mikhail Bernsstam , explains, the level of emotions around the future composition of the Supreme Court is explained by its extreme weight in the country's political institutions system. The presidents come and go, the supreme judges remain for decades.

Mikhail Burnsstam

- In the system of the Constitutional Republic of the United States, the judiciary is power. A member of the Supreme Court, appointed by the President of the United States now, will affect the life of the country a quarter century later, and maybe thirty years later. We now have a legacy that has been laid down since 1981 by President Reagan. Since then, 22 years have been republican presidents, 16 years old - democratic. This story is reflected by the composition of the Supreme Court. Of the nine judges, five are, relatively speaking, conservative, republican, four - liberal, democratic. The composition of the court reflects the 38-year history of the United States and all past presidents. There is nothing like this in any other branch of power.

- And yet why, for a considerable number of prominent republicans, the main issue of the presidential election was the issue of the composition of the Supreme Court? Many people from the republican political establishment admitted that, despite doubts, they vote for Donald Trump, because it is very important for them that conservative judges are in the highest court.

Jurisprudence is somewhat similar to theology or philology

- We need to make a reservation, I do not reason in this case as a lawyer, I am not a lawyer. In this case, I reason in the point of view of the economic analysis of the political system of the Constitutional Republic of the United States. This is not pure democracy, it is a constitutional republic based on the text. The task of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution and laws adopted by Congress. This is not a scientific analysis, this is an analysis of texts. In this sense, jurisprudence is somewhat similar to theology or philology. That is, there are authoritative texts, and their interpretation is a matter of a given time, current legal tradition and political, ideological and legal preferences of specific people who make up the Supreme Court. When complex problems appear on which political life depends, the final arbitrator by American tradition is the Supreme Court, which gives one or another interpretation. Let me remind you a very important precedent. 2000. The US presidential election took place, and in the general elections the majority of votes received the former vice president Albert Gore. George Bush Jr., who became the president, won by the votes of the electors. But the voting results in Florida were within the statistical error, the difference was 537 votes. And the Supreme Court decided to stop the next recalculation of the votes in Florida, as a result of which George Bush got the vote of state electors and the election victory. But at the same time, the case was decided by the republican majority of judges, and the democrats were against. Thus, the Supreme Court then decided the fate of the presidency. Now, when the questions of the investigation of the surroundings of the candidate Trump arose, the case may also go to the Supreme Court and thus the court may decide the fate of America. In addition, there are complicated constitutional issues at stake: for example, in relation to racial minorities, immigration issues were resolved recently by the decision of the Supreme Court, which confirmed the legality of the decrees of President Trump, limiting immigration. These are decisions that have colossal political importance, therefore, the resolution of the largest problems of the country in the coming decades depends on the balance of power in the Supreme Court.

- Now Trump’s critics say that from the Supreme Court, if, for example, he undertakes to consider the issue of the constitutionality of the right of the Americans to abortion, it depends on which direction the country will go: liberal or more conservative. Or is it an exaggeration?

Even a small ideological change in the composition of the Supreme Court will have a very large meaning

- This is not an exaggeration. The Supreme Court often determines the trends of historical development and even cancels its own precedents. After all, there was a time when the court considered slavery to be a legal institution, the unequal position of racial minorities is legitimate even after the abolition of slavery. Then, in 1954, the Supreme Court canceled the segregation, it was the famous decision "Brown against the Board of Education of Education." It should be noted that the legislative branch took another 10 years, until under President Johnson there were no laws on equal rights. That is, the Supreme Court for 10 years ahead of other branches of power. Therefore, it is clear that even a small ideological change in the composition of the Supreme Court will have a very large meaning.