I admit, my decision to start this project is in part based on personal experience. In 2000, I voted, at age 19, for Ralph Nader for President. And then I saw this nation and this world go to hell in ways I never thought possible. My country, that even at my most cynical, my most radical, I always believed in, was starting wars of choice; was torturing people with techniques we'd recognized as criminal over a century ago. What the hell happened? I have absolutely no interest in talking about the 2000 election; all that matters to me is the future, and restoring this country to its true principles. So, the Democrats have to win in 2008, and they need every vote they can.

I'm hoping that I'll be able to write a number of diaries like this focusing on the important differences between the parties on different issues, and I hope other people will help since I don't have that much time nor am I an expert on all the issues. But I want to start with an issue where the difference really matters for me: the Supreme Court.

After the Iowa caucus results came in, and I went here and I saw that the obnoxious, offensive bickering between the supporters of the top three candidates was already continuing and even getting nastier, I changed the background wallpaper on my laptop to a picture of Justice John Paul Stevens. This was to remind myself why I must support the Democratic nominee no matter who it is or how much some of their online supporters bug me (some online supporters of all three major candidates bug me).

That action shows one of the ways I've most clearly changed since 2000. Back then, I thought the Supreme Court was just a codeword for abortion, just a way for the Democrats to keep pro-choice voters in line. Then I went to law school, and in my first year Constitutional Law class I found out how the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution effects everything: from whether workers have the right to form unions to what the federal government can do to protect the environment to whether New York can issue a monopoly for steamboat service between New York and New Jersey (Hey, it could come up again!)

I love the Supreme Court. Not the current nine justices, but the institution. When I was working in Washington, D.C., this summer it was the one place I made sure I went to see before I left. I think the Court plays an important and difficult role in American government: protecting the rights of individuals and minorities while also recognizing when it should defer to the politically elected branches. I believe that great justices like John Marshall, Louis Brandeis, and Earl Warren have made contributions American progress that are just as important as those made by many of our presidents and congressional leaders.

And so, I'm scared when I think about the possibility of any of the Republicans filling the next spots on the Supreme Court. They talk about appointing justices in the mold of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. This should scare, well, everyone who likes any piece of legislation passed in the 20th century. Because Justices Thomas and Scalia don't care about protecting rights, deferring to the legislature, or contributing to American progress. They certainly don't care about how the law impacts the rights of everyday people. But, in their defense they have a good excuse. See, they believe the constitution was written in stone in 1787. And if the constitution ever seems unclear, well, that's okay because they have the magical ability to read the minds of the Framers (who, of course, unanimously agreed on everything) and determine exactly what it means. This should already seem insane. If it does not, please read Justice Thomas' concurring opinion in Morse v. Frederick (the "Bong hits for Jesus" case, http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/0 6pdf/06-278.pdf, page 19 of the PDF) in which he declares that in 1787 public school children had no free speech rights, so they shouldn't now. In the course of declaring this, he rather nostalgically talks about how teachers used to be able to discipline their students however they liked. I hope you are scared now.

And, although Justice Thomas may be on the extreme end of things, the fact is that there are three other justices who have the same general view of things that he does. So, the main thing standing between that view holding a majority of the Supreme Court is Justice Stevens, who I admire tremendously, and who also happens to be an 87 year old man in a bow tie. So, unless you can assure me that the bow tie makes Justice Stevens immortal (and that Ruth Bader Ginsburg has a similar power) quite frankly, you'll have a pretty impossible time convincing me that there is a good reason for doing anything but voting for the Democratic nominee in November.  

And yes, it is true that Justice Stevens and Justice Souter, whom I also admire, were both appointed by Republicans. But if you think that the current GOP will settle for anything less than a full fledged Federalist Society movement conservative as a Supreme Court nominee from a Republican president...well, ask Harriet Miers about that.

To summarize: at least one, probably two, possibly even three Supreme Court vacancies will open up in the next presidential term. Unless you want them filled by people who think similarly to a guy who is nostalgic for corporal punishment, you should vote for the Democratic nominee. And this is the first (hopefully in a series) of differences that matter.