By Peggy Tartaro,
Executive Editor

Because the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) apparently takes its links with the 18th century literally, arguments before the court are not televised. The court does allow an audio feed of its deliberations, so back in March when the landmark case on the District of Columbia's 32-year-old law which virtually banned all firearms by private citizens was heard, citizens could hear the arguments by attorneys for both sides of the case-as well as the questions by eight of the nine justices. (Clarence Thomas did not pose any questions to either the attorney for DC, Alan Gura who represented Dick Anthony Heller, the plaintiff, or the US Solicitor General Office's counsel.)

C-SPAN, perhaps the most singular thing to ever come out of the invention of cable television, gave "viewers" the entire oral arguments, both on its cable channel and on-line. When anyone was speaking, they helpfully threw up a still picture of the person, so it was fairly easy to follow.

Then followed a long stwo months or so of nail-biting, accompanied by speculation on all sides of the issue. Most observers-pro-gun, anti-gun and those who are just SCOTUS-watchers, seemed to think the decision would come out in favor of the plaintiff, so most of the handicapping had to do with how the Court would split and how far it would go in making its decision.

Every week in June, our brethren in the office working on Gun Week, would sigh and wonder if another issue would go to press with some variant of the headline, "Heller Decision Imminent."

As one "important" decision after another came down, we all expected Heller would be next.

Of course, it was the last decision to appear this term. When announcing decisions the Court is also technology-adverse. Written opinions (and their dissents) are released and that is that. The Court has a website, and you can download the information, but only the text of the decision and dissent.

The media and the pundocracy do wrangle over the decisions, but there's no explanation offered by the Justices, no talking points issued and no appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows to explain their reasoning. (I like to think there are brave and interested citizens in the Greater Washington Area who chase the Justices down in Publix or at Starbucks, ask a few questions and get answers, but I've never heard that it is so.)

That's because SCOTUS, with its lifetime appointments, was set up to be above the political fray. To deliberate and to determine and to judge without pressure from anyone. In a perfect world, the most learned legal minds set themselves to the task without regard to consequence and simply decide.

But, pretty much from when the Court began sitting, all sorts of outside factors came to bear upon it, and have continued to do so. The Court can resist televising proceedings, they can even issue opinions written by an army of clerks using quills on foolscap, but the Justices are citizens, in most cases with extensive political experience, and they do not live in SCOTUSland, apart from the rest of us, but indeed, probably do occasionally steal away to the grocery store or coffee shop.

Quite a lot was made, after the Heller decision, over the fact that Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, is known to be a hunter.

Our pals over at the Violence Policy Center (VCP), the SPECTRE of anti-gunners, even splashed a Gun Week cover which featured a picture of Scalia and Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation (parent of Women & Guns) on-line.

Josh Sugarmann, the VCP's Voldermort (if I may be permitted to mix bad guy-cultural references), even got a column and that Scalia-Gottlieb cover posted over on the Huffington Post website.

The anti-gun line, as promulgated by Josh and his fellow thinkers, is that the decision (which by the way had nothing to do with hunting) is tainted by Scalia's human interests.
The Justices are human, though, are they not? Would we want (and don't various people interested in various issues, demand) that these final arbiters have opinions, even feelings on a host of subjects?

I'm glad Karen MacNutt, in her column elsewhere in this issue, took Justice Stephen Breyer to task over his dissent, which when I read it, seemed awfully elitist, if not downright racist, to me.

But where, I wonder, were the other voices outraged by his seeming to say that some citizens of the US are more trustworthy, more just plain worthy, than others?

As we head into the final leg of this year's presidential race, I'm sure we will hear pundits and debate questioners probe the candidates about SCOTUS. It's likely that the next president will nominate one or more candidates to the Supreme Court.

I am just as sure that both candidates will answer with the well-worn phrases, "strict constructionist," or "best legal mind," or a similar line.

The questioners will probe, and, as they have done for the last 20 years, cite the Court's Roe decision in 1972-"is the candidate in favor of a justice who finds Roe acceptable or not?"

It would be refreshing-not to say-enlightening-were they to ask the same question about Heller.

Peggy Tartaro

Photo © Copyright 1998 Nancy Floyd, used with permission.