By Peggy Tartaro,
Executive Editor

The beginning of summer is a good time to talk about sand-and lines in it. Most of us live sand-free lives except for the odd excursion to the beach in summer, or perhaps on a winter getaway, so we always need a little time remembering what it's like-how hot it can be, what a challenge it is to run it, what a perfect "mattress" it makes for a blanket or towel, how it changes the closer you get to the water's edge.

Come late June or so we're also likely to see another seasonal spectacle-the announcement of President Obama's pick to fill the Supreme Court seat of John Paul Stevens and the "advise and consent" process in the Senate that will follow.

If you've nothing pressing to do between now and then you might want to read Alan Drury's novel Advise and Consent, or even rent the pretty decent movie made from it in the late '60s. Drury had the luxury of writing fiction, in which exaggeration routinely heightens reality, but the "what ifs" of his book are now pretty much standard operating procedure for an appointment to the high court.

Regardless of whom Obama nominates, we are likely to hear that he or she is "the best legal mind," or the "most qualified" from one side, while the other declares the nominee the "worst possible choice" or "a slap in the face to the American people."

There will be the usual suspects-to borrow a phrase from another good movie: posturing Senators, overwrought pundits, a clear-eyed jurist punting on any question with a whiff of controversy attached, last minute mind-changers-and the rest of us.

Stevens' replacement will likely not change the ideological makeup of the current court, a court that ruled 5-4 on Heller last year and seems likely to rule similarly in McDonald, scheduled to be decided upon about the time you read this, or not long after.

All those "likelies" in the above paragraph are one way of saying, "you just never know with the Supreme Court." Stevens was an appointee of Gerald Ford, yet has become the preeminent liberal voice on the Court, authoring most of the dissents in recent years, including Heller.

I am hopeful, of course, that one or more of the dissenters in Heller might see the light in McDonald, but hope (like change) is a quality more talked about than practiced in Washington, DC.

Whoever the nominee is, he or she will become a lightning rod, not just for the time surrounding the nomination and-here it is again-likely-confirmation by the Senate, but in the mid-term elections that will follow closely after.

And here is where the lines come in. A person with a political viewpoint has an obligation to take a stand, even when it's evident her position will not be in the majority. That same person-we'll call her a "citizen," has a further obligation to weigh whether her views are strong enough to compel her to work against the re-election of anyone opposing her will, and, if so, to draw that line in the sand.

The other evening the phone rang and a cheerful voice began to read me what she assured me would be a very short political poll. It was. She read me the names of half a dozen local politicians-ranging from mayor to councilman to assemblyman, and she even threw in the name of an unelected politician, a well-known "party boss." Since she asked for me by name, I can only assume she knew (or whoever would read the results did) that all of the names were members of the same political party to which I belong.

My reaction to each name was "unfavorable," although I did work myself up to "Very Unfavorable" in one case. Most of these guys are-you guessed it-likely-to retain their offices the next time around.

Will these folks work to change my specific view of them? Unlikely. But if enough people draw enough lines in enough sand, the walking, even for seasoned politicians, can get very tricky.

Peggy Tartaro

Photo © Copyright 1998 Nancy Floyd, used with permission.