Roe vs. Wade
Roe vs. Wade is presented as a rather questionable constitutional decision, which has led to subsequent legal (and political) vulnerability. That Chief Justice Burger assigned rookie Justice Blackman to write the decision simply adds to the curiousness of the Roe precedent.
What comes across clearly is that Chief Justice Warren Burger was inadequate both in his legal astuteness and in his ability to lead and manage the Court. William Rehnquist, first as justice, then as chief justice, is portrayed as a frequent dissenter who had the capacity to accept being outvoted with aplomb. Moreover, he sought to restore the Supreme Court as being supreme in constitutional interpretation, while moving modestly to limit the scope of Congress regarding state issues. The Court’s intervention in the Bush-Gore Florida election issue was ascribed to Rehnquist’s belief that someone had to clear up the political, as opposed to legal, problems posed by the Florida Supreme Court’s actions.
On balance, I consider this a masterful portrayal of the least-known arm of government in the constitutional system of checks and balances. Jurists may quibble at aspects of the emphasis and selection of decisions. For example, the Supreme Court’s role in the Watergate imbroglio was ignored. Four hours is a brief time to describe, to laymen, the intricacies of how the Supreme Court adjusted to a rapidly expanding United States within a Constitution that required constant reconsideration and reinterpretation. The producers chose to focus on selected decisions, while illustrating the importance of personalities in determining was is the changing ‘law of the land.’ This has been accomplished superbly. The accompanying pbs.org Supreme Court web site is superb both for jurists and for inquisitive amateurs.
