The bill’s House sponsor, state Rep. Kelli Stargel, R-Lakeland, is not only an anti-abortion rights advocate, she’s also the wife of Circuit Court Judge John Stargel. #

Judge Stargel is among a number of judges to whom young women can appeal in order to get a waiver for a parental notification needed to obtain an abortion. In short, Stargel’s wife sponsored legislation this year that directly affects how he does his day-to-day work. #

Like his wife, Judge Stargel once dabbled in politics, serving as state Representative in Florida for four years starting in 2002. #

During his time as a representative, Judge Stargel took on the issue of judicial bypasses for minors seeking an abortion very publicly. #

According to a 2006 Life News article, Stargel has long been interested in giving judges less latitude in granting parental-notification waivers, as well as more time in granting them. #

From the article: #

Rep. John Stargel, a Lakeland Republican says the “girl’s best interest” standard the law uses is too vague and is allowing judges to grant any abortion requests… #

“It leaves it wide open for the judge to make the determination that any negative consequence to the minor eliminates the parents’ right to know under the Florida Constitution,” Stargel said. #

Stargel will propose legislation that will give judges more time to thoroughly review each case — moving it from 48 hours to seven days. He also wants to make sure the provision applies only to girls who face personal harm from telling their parents. #

His wife’s bill addresses the very issues that Judge Stargel attempted to confront during his time as a legislator. HB 1247, which is set to become law, would give judges more time to rule on a petition. Some have even argued that the delays could extend the process up to three weeks. #

The new law would also require judges to “ask questions of the applicant that determine if she ‘has the ability to assess both the immediate and long-range consequences of [her] choices.’” #

A separate article in Life News, also from 2006, pointed out that Judge Stargel disliked an earlier version of the parental notification law, which gave young women options when seeking a judge for a petition. #

According to the article, Stargel introduced a measure that would tighten up judicial bypass requirements, effectively halting the practice of “judge-shopping,” or going to other parts of the state in an effort to get a case heard by a pro-abortion-rights judge. #

Rep. Kelli Stargel’s bill addresses this issue, too. If the law passes, young women will be restricted to only the district court in which they reside, a provision that legislators on both sides of the aisle and abortion-rights advocates see as an infringement on a woman’s privacy. #

The ethics of the connection between Rep. Stargel and her husband’s job as a judge are not entirely clear. #

According to Bob Jarvis, a legal ethics professor at Nova Southeastern University’s law school, the only way that any impropriety on Judge Stargel’s behalf could be addressed is if a lawyer helping a young girl seeking a judicial bypass claims this connection as “a clear bias” and fights for Stargel to recuse himself. #

Says Jarvis, “It’s a long shot, though.” #

Jarvis explains that, to determine impropriety in the judicial system, bias would have to be proven, which is not always an easy feat. #

“What a lawyer would have to answer is, ‘Does this judge have a closed mind? Is there any evidence available of this?’” #

While a clear bias as a judge might be hard to prove, Judge Stargel did embroil himself in abortion-rights issues as a legislator. #

In 2005, he supported a decision made by Florida’s Department of Children and Families to block a 13 year-old girl living in shelters from receiving an abortion. #

But as a judge, Stargel is no longer able to voice his opinions as publicly. #

Opinions of Stargel’s performance as a judge vary widely across the board. In judges surveys, remarks have ranged from “works hard, studies the issues, gives everyone a fair chance,” to “confidence exceeds his competence” and even “smug, pompous, makes law from the bench, disregards established law.” #

Kelli Stargel, however, remains outspoken about her views on abortion as a legislator. #

A story in the Lakeland Ledger described how she and Judge Stargel dealt with an unplanned pregnancy early on in their relationship. Kelli was 17 years old when she got pregnant. She and John decided to keep the baby and marry. The couple now has four children. #

“God created that baby,” she told The Ledger. “We had some tough times. We had two kids and John was in law school, I look back and wonder how we did it sometimes. But we did it.” #

The article also notes that Stargel formerly worked at a crisis pregnancy center. In Florida, these state-funded clinics that discourage women from having abortions have been found to distribute misinformation about abortions. #

While it is likely that Florida’s governor will sign H.B. 1247 into law, the ACLU of Florida has already begun looking into whether or not it will challenge the legislation. Other groups, such as the Florida Association of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, have also expressed opposition to the law. #

The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder notes that it simply gives Democrats a more defined target:

Republicans don’t need a Contract or a Pledge. Their base is energized. The Democrats aren’t. A Pledge that doesn’t increase the information content about the Republican brand.-The folks who are going to vote arguably know Republicans stand for the stuff in the pledge because Republicans have been talking about this stuff since the beginning of the cycle. Arguably, it gives Democrats more of a defined target, something that they can reach out with two fingers, poke eyeballs, and redirect to. Arguably-ably, a more substantive governing document, had the Republicans been able to produce such a creature, would have made it harder for Democrats to demagogue.

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein, meanwhile, has already gotten the ball rolling on that process, poking some pretty worrisome holes in the new GOP road map:

You’re also left with a difficult question: What, exactly, does the Republican Party believe? The document speaks constantly and eloquently of the dangers of debt — but offers a raft of proposals that would sharply increase it. It says, in one paragraph, that the Republican Party will commit itself to “greater liberty” and then, in the next, that it will protect “traditional marriage.” It says that “small business must have certainty that the rules won’t change every few months” and then promises to change all the rules that the Obama administration has passed in recent months. It is a document with a clear theory of what has gone wrong — debt, policy uncertainty, and too much government — and a solid promise to make most of it worse.

Of course, Republicans didn’t just release the Pledge for fun. They’re responding to some pretty serious charges that all they’re good at is saying ‘no’ to Democratic overreach, and now that the prospect of governing is within their grasp, they want to remind voters that they haven’t forgotten how. ”The key for the electorate is which party has the better plan to create jobs and grow the economy,” GOP pollster David Winston tells Chris Cillizza at The Fix. “If you don’t have a jobs and economic plan, why would the electorate give you the responsibility of governing?”

OBAMA: I think, I am very confident that if people know what the choice is, if people take a look at what Democrats stand for and what Republicans stand for, who we’re fighting for, and who they’re fighting for, then we will win. And so, my challenge, and the challenge of every Democratic candidate who’s out there is just making sure the people understand there’s a choice here.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And now you’re–

OBAMA: If the election is a referendum on are people satisfied about the economy as it currently is, then we’re not going to do well. Because I think everybody feels like this economy needs to do better than it’s been doing.

This basically encapsulates both party’s positions and best hopes in a nutshell. Republicans will hammer Democratic incumbents over the state of the economy, while Democrats will place an emphasis, as Obama did, on the word choice. They’ll try to remind voters that Republicans haven’t exactly been proposing a lot of bright ideas to make it better (besides returning to the policies of the Bush era).

On generic ballots, it’s clear that Republicans enjoy a big advantage — which might make the GOP wish it had more candidates who were, well, more generic. The only hope for Democrats is that the views of individual Republican candidates like Nevada’s Sharron Angle, Kentucky’s Rand Paul, or Colorado’s Ken Buck will prove too radical or wacky for voters to tolerate.

More justices in the mold of Antonin Scalia could be on the way under a McCain presidency. (Flickr: eralon)

There has been much debate about whether Sen. John McCain is a candidate of change. But in one area, McCain is unquestionably a reformer. He would almost certainly make fundamental changes in the direction of the U.S. Supreme Court.

McCain has said that, should he be president, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito “would serve as the model for my own nominees.” He regularly attacks what he calls “activist judging,” and he described a recent ruling vindicating the right to habeas corpus as “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” McCain has repeatedly said that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

If McCain is elected, change would clearly be coming to the U.S. Supreme Court. And in constitutional law, the Republican presidential nominee is anything but conservative. Once skeptical of the idea that the court should overrule Roe v. Wade, he now invokes the clichés and code words of the extreme right. His votes have matched his words, for he has been a proud and enthusiastic supporter of President George W. Bush’s most extreme appointees to the courts of appeals.

Recently McCain complained of “the common and systematic abuse of our federal courts by the people we entrust with judicial power. For decades now, some federal judges have taken it upon themselves to pronounce and rule on matters that were never intended to be heard in courts or decided by judges.”

In his view, the “system of checks and balances rarely disappoints,” but “there is one great exception in our day”: the Supreme Court. McCain aims to eliminate that exception. It is more than mere speculation to suggest that with judicial appointments, McCain may well follow the extreme right-wing of his party.

The court is already dominated by Republican appointees, and in the last 20 years, it has shifted dramatically to the right. The next president is expected to be able to appoint at least one — and possibly as many as three — new members. Even a single appointment would likely shift constitutional law in major ways.

The right to choose remains sharply contested within the Supreme Court — and the Republican Party and the pro-life movement have long sought to eliminate that right. The McCain-Palin ticket plans first to “return the abortion question to the individual states” and then “to end abortion at the state level.”

We might well return to a period in which states threatened to subject pregnant women, and their doctors, with jail sentences for exercising the right to choose. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest, and there is no doubt that many states would attempt to enact that belief into law.

But abortion is only the tip of the iceberg.

Consider McCain’s astounding statement that the court’s recent vindication of the right to habeas corpus is among “the worst decisions” in the nation’s history. (As bad as Dred Scott v. Sandford, entrenching slavery? As bad as Lochner v. New York, striking down maximum hour laws? As bad as Plessy v. Ferguson, upholding racial segregation?) McCain’s favorite justices — Roberts and Alito — have consistently sided with the Bush administration in cases involving the constitutional authority of the president. Under a President McCain, their dissenting views might well become the law of the land.

The Supreme Court has already struck down provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Violence Against Women Act. A McCain court would go further. Some Republican appointees have raised constitutional doubts about provisions of the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. With new members on the court, important environmental laws would face fresh constitutional scrutiny.

In the last decade, Republican appointees to the bench have led a constitutional attack on affirmative-action programs. But in some areas, like education, for example, government is allowed to engage in a modest degree of affirmative action. With an appointment or two by a McCain administration, affirmative-action programs might be banned entirely.

Does the Constitution allow Congress to enact campaign-finance reform? McCain clearly thinks so. But his favorite justices — Roberts and Alito — have severe doubts. Campaign-finance proposals already face acute constitutional doubts. With one or two McCain appointments, most such proposals may well become constitutionally unthinkable.

All this offers merely a glimpse. Some Republican appointees want to restrict citizens’ rights of access to federal courts, to give commercial advertising the same level of protection as political dissent, to provide new protection to property rights (at the expense of environmental law), to narrow the court’s decisions involving sex discrimination, and much more.

There is a major irony here. McCain calls for “strict construction” and “judicial restraint,” and he rejects “legislating from the bench.” But in countless areas, conservative appointees avoid strict construction, and they are all too willing to legislative from the bench.

There is a close connection between the constitutional views of McCain’s his preferred judges and the political views of the extreme right-wing of the GOP. To say the least, it would be a startling coincidence if the best interpretation of the Constitution turned out, fairly consistently, to entrench the political views of one or another side.

When McCain calls for “strict construction” and “judicial restraint” while opposing “judicial legislation,” no one should be fooled. Is it “restrained” for justices to invalidate campaign-finance laws and provisions of the Violence Against Women Act? Is it “strict construction” to strike down affirmative-action programs, to ban Congress from allowing citizens to sue in federal court, to give unprecedented protection to property rights?

When McCain speaks of strict construction and restraint, he is speaking in code. He is signaling his desire to produce large-scale change in the direction favored by the far right — for starters, and above all, by overruling Roe v. Wade.

It is not at all clear that a McCain administration would seek to reorient current practices in the domestic arena or in foreign policy. But there is no doubt that in constitutional law, McCain favors fundamental change.

The question remains: Is this really the change we need?
Cass R. Sunstein is Felix Frankfurter professor of law at Harvard Law School. He will be the Harry Kalven Visiting Professor at University of Chicago Law School in January 2009. His most recent book, which he co-wrote with Richard Thaler, is “Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness.” His books include “Are Judges Political? An Empirical Analysis of the Federal Judiciary” and “The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More Than Ever.”