More than 50 undergraduate, graduate and professional students flocked to Sanford Institute of Public Policy to hear four professors weigh in on recent Supreme Court nominations.
Professors touched on the difference between political and judicial ideologies, discussed the liberal-conservative balance of the court and offered their opinions on the recent Supreme Court nominees.
When Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her resignation from the court July 1, speculation raged about who President George W. Bush would choose to replace her.
He first nominated John Roberts, an appeals court judge who found himself in line instead for the Chief Justice seat after former Chief Justice William Rehnquist died Sept. 3. Bush then tapped White House Counsel Harriet Miers, who withdrew her nomination last week after many liberals worried that she would let a right-wing bias seep into her judicial decisions and many Republicans questioned if she would be a reliable conservative.
When Bush nominated appeals court judge Samuel Alito to fill O'Connor's seat Monday, his judicial ideologies were already well known. Conservatives have applauded the choice and some Democratic senators are threatening to filibuster the nomination.
Professors of Law Erwin Chemerinsky and Jefferson Powell sat on the panel along with Assistant Professors of Law Jedediah Purdy and Neil Siegel.
They discussed at length possible political ramifications of the ideology of the next justice.
Siegel, who recently completed a clerkship with Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said Alito would move the court significantly to the right on many controversial issues, such as abortion and campaign finance reform.
"If you are a conservative, you should be thrilled. If you're on the other side of the street, this is about as bad as it gets," said Chemerinsky, who has argued two cases before the Supreme Court.
Siegel argued that Alito would not be as conservative as other justices on the court, such as Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.
"From the liberal or moderate perspective, there were people on the short list who were much worse," Siegel said. "The idea that this is another Scalia is vastly oversimplified."
Chemerinsky said it is not clear which method Alito would employ if he ends up on the court. Some of the uncertainty about his decision-making process may stem from the difficulty in gathering that type of information in Court of Appeals decisions.
He added that Alito does not have an originalist philosophy, like Associate Justice Clarence Thomas.
The panelists also responded to Bush's decision not to nominate another woman to replace O'Connor.
"I think having women, minorities and those with low socioeconomic status on the court is very important," Chemerinsky said.
Siegel argued, however, that other issues outweigh the desire to have a minority on the court.
"I do think that these issues do matter to a lot of people," Siegel said. "At most, conservatives were arguing that yes, this stuff matters, but other stuff matters more."
Panelists also fielded a question about how effective Senate confirmation hearings were for nominees.
"I think the Senate should say, 'Answer the questions or we won't confirm you,'" Chemerinsky said. "We don't make somebody impartial by pretending they don't have views."
Panelists also answered questions about the political ramifications of nominating a strong conservative. Chemerinsky said the political controversy surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas' nomination in 1991 hurt the Republicans in the 1992 national elections.
Some students weighed in with their own opinions after the panel. Junior Daniel Bowes, president of the American Civil Liberties Union at Duke, said he was disappointed in student reaction to the nominations.
"They're not acting the way they should be," he said. "This is what could be a turning point in this country's judicial philosophy. After the panel discussion, it made the future of civil liberties in the U.S. look pretty bleak. I can only hope for a filibuster or a scandal."
The event was sponsored by the Duke Political Union, the ACLU at Duke and the Duke Conservative Union.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.