Of supreme importance

MANY of the most crucial US Supreme Court cases in recent years have been decided by 5-to-4 votes. In the two most recent sessions, a one-vote margin decided whether individual Americans have the right to own guns; if race can be a factor in public school assignments; the constitutionality of lethal injection; whether greenhouse gases can be regulated under the Clean Air Act; and whether women given discriminatory wages can sue once they discover the inequity. In other words, the actions of the country's highest court touch every American, far beyond the usual fixation on the right to abortion.

With five of the nine jurists over age 70, the next president may get several appointments. And as with much else, Barack Obama and John McCain differ sharply on whom they would nominate.

At a session with the megachurch preacher Rick Warren in August, McCain and Obama were both asked whom they would not have appointed among the current court. Obama named Justice Clarence Thomas, explaining, "I don't think he was a strong enough jurist or a legal thinker at the time." McCain named the entire liberal wing of the court - justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens - whom he tarred with the familiar indictment "legislating from the bench."

We would differ with McCain's choices, and would argue that some of the more sweeping rulings of the conservative wing also amount to "legislating from the bench" (remember Bush v. Gore?). In any case, McCain's answer reveals that ideology, not competence, would drive his choices.

These lifetime appointments are likely to be the enduring legacy of either president. Voters must decide carefully.