Dozens of journalists, academics and citizens will gather in a grand marble hall today to watch a frail 80-year-old man for any sign of capitulation to age or ill-health -- aware that the looming battle to succeed him is likely to split the nation in two.
It sounds like a scene from some bygone European monarchy. But the court in question is the US Supreme Court, the gleaming white temple that sits alongside Congress on Washington's Capitol Hill.
And the ailing patriarch under scrutiny is William Rehnquist, the chief justice for the past 19 years, who rules over the court from its central reclining leather chair, his black robe striped in regal gold.
ILLUSTRATION: YUSHA
Every Monday morning, the great square chamber fills with a hushed and reverent crowd to hear the latest rulings handed down from what is probably the most powerful law court in the world. It makes literally life-and-death decisions about execution or abortion, stem-cell research or guns -- just about every issue that divides Americans.
But the crowd is also there in anticipation of a historic retirement announcement that will bring to an end the longest period of judicial stability since the 19th century and set Republican against Democrat, devout against secular, "red" against "blue" America.
The judicial death watch is primarily on Rehnquist, who has been struggling with thyroid cancer since last October, and barely had the strength in January to swear in President George W. Bush for his second presidential term.
However, the nine-judge bench contains other men and women long past normal retirement age. When the court is called to order, they file slowly through gaps in the heavy crimson-and-gold drapes like veteran actors on the brink of their last bow.
John Paul Stevens is 85. Sandra Day O'Connor is 75 and has privately talked about stepping down. When they give up their seats, the ensuing struggle will be even more intense, because it will give Bush the opportunity to replace a liberal and a centrist Republican, respectively, with a true conservative. In a court that has voted 5-4 on some of the most contentious issues in American society, such a change would represent an earthquake.
When Rehnquist steps down, the implications for that delicate balance are less immediate. One conservative will presumably be replaced by another. But if one of the judges on the far right of the bench, Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, were to be promoted to the chief justice's seat, the tone of the court would change. Where Rehnquist is courtly, the two radicals are aggressive. Scalia, in particular, is caustic about his fellow judges when they disagree with his world view. And for an Italian-American Catholic, the question of abortion is urgent and central.
In his 33 years on the bench, first as associate justice, then as chief, Rehnquist has seen seven presidents come and go -- long enough to accumulate a sense of independence -- and his rulings have frequently been inconvenient for the White House.
When Bush chooses a new Supreme Court judge, either to replace Rehnquist directly or to take the place of whichever sitting justice is promoted to the top position, he will have the opportunity to choose a complete loyalist.
The president, arguably, has no greater power in the domestic arena. His legislation can be overturned. The Cabinet secretaries, officials and ambassadors he hires will be shown the door as soon as he leaves office. But his judicial appointments will live on long after -- making decisions that help define daily life.
One name frequently mentioned as a presidential pick is Michael Luttig, a Christian conservative currently sitting on a federal circuit court of appeals, who comes from the president's home town, Midland, Texas.
Alternatively, Bush could use the occasion to make some history by opting for a minority appointment, such as Larry Thompson, a black former deputy attorney general now working for PepsiCo, or a conservative Hispanic judge such as Miguel Estrada, Emilio Garza or Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
The choice of a minority moderate conservative would speed the confirmation process in the Senate, splitting the Democratic opposition. Anyone else is likely to trigger a pitched battle.
For the political activist groups who serve as the pistons in any presidential campaign, the Supreme Court is the grand prize.
Organizations such as the conservative Committee for Justice and the liberal People for the American Way have been marshaling their money and troops for the big battle. Such grassroots groups might well push the Democrats into fighting a costly confirmation battle the party knows it will lose.
"The problem is that the interest groups that are of concern to Democrats might not be willing to accept what they see as rolling over and playing dead," argued Mark Tushnet, a Georgetown University law professor. "These things are as much about satisfying constituency groups as affecting the outcome."
Most of the recent skirmishes in Congress over the filibuster have simply been preparing the ground for the almighty conflict ahead.
Both sides will pump millions of dollars into television advertisements condemning or flattering the candidate judge, and the Senate will have time for little else.
Congress still bears the scars from the bitter confirmation battles over Robert Bork, a conservative academic nominated by former president Ronald Reagan in 1987 and defeated, much to the anger of the Republican right, and Clarence Thomas, who overcame allegations of sexual harassment in 1991.
David O'Brien, a political science professor at the University of Virginia and the author of a book on the Supreme Court, entitled Storm Center, predicted that Bush would raise the stakes of the looming battle by picking a relatively young, committed conservative.
"His propensity is not to compromise on judicial appointments, unlike Clinton or his father," O'Brien said. "And Bush wants to put someone in there who's going to last 20 years at least."
The conventional wisdom has been that Rehnquist will step down next week, at the end of the current court session -- triggering the start of the battle. But the old judge may yet have a surprise up his golden-striped sleeve. Court-watchers say he has been looking relatively spry lately, and still seems to relish his job. Bush may have to wait a little longer to leave his mark on history.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under