Supreme Court as Supreme Being

March 22, 2010

Supreme Court Again Rejects Injunction in Asian Carp Case

This article discusses the Supreme Court's decision to reject an injunction that would close Chicago-area waterways in order to curb the destruction of the Asian carp. The Supreme Court had not yet decided whether they would reopen a 90 year old case over the management of the waterways.
The article mentions the damage that the fish would cause could be significant and also that the closure of locks would be a costly blow for the local shipping industry.
The article emphasizes the power the Supreme Court has in deciding what cases it will take. While this article does not directly blame the Court for their decision to reject an injunction, it does place them in a vulnerable position in the minds of the readers. The Times' portrayal of the Court as the authority on the decision seems to suggest that if something goes wrong or bad things happen as a result of the injunction, that the Supreme Court will be responsible. The article mentions that because of this decision, Obama will be the one in charge now:
"After today's Supreme Court decision, the Obama administration will have its hand on the rudder until the Supreme Court decides whether to reopen a 90-year-old case over Illinois' management of the waterways connecting the Mississippi River Basin and the Great Lakes."
...suggesting that he, too, could potentially be at blame for the things that occur in the future.