The comedy and tragedy of an election night in the United States

The best place to watch the election returns coming in Tuesday night was on Comedy Central. With insta-pundits mouthing pointless platitudes on all the other stations, the only wisdom to be had that evening came from the sage analysis of Daily Show anchor, and Mercer County local, Jon Stewart.

"Well," he said, wrapping up the night's coverage, "it looks like the Republicans have taken control of everything. And I have just one thing to say: We were with you guys all the way. In fact, I see no reason whatsoever to . . . say . . . shut us down here or something. For we love and worship you, oh, our Republican masters. All hail . . . uh . . . you guys."

Okay, I may be misquoting here. It was really late, after all, and I'd had a whole bunch of beers. You have to understand, election night is like the Super Bowl for politics grad students. But I'm pretty sure Jon Stewart said something like that, and if he didn't, he should have. It would have been totally hilarious.

Stewart's groveling is so funny because we all know it is unnecessary. We live under a constitutional system, after all, in which even those who win (or buy or steal) an election remain under strict limitations. The worst Trent Lott and his cronies can do domestically is bankrupt the government with massive tax breaks for the wealthy, or turn the Alaskan wilderness into a pool of bubbling crude. Political satire is safe no matter who sits in the Senate; our basic freedoms of speech, religion and assembly remain untouchable, enshrined far above the political fray.

Such, at least, was my reasoning as I consoled myself over Tuesday's lurch rightward in our federal government. In my moments of deepest despair, however, I wonder if it all isn't just a bunch of bull. A constitution isn't some sort of godlike entity that can make everything all right in the end independent of what we do. It is a human creation, a political creation, and its principles need to be carried out by certain of us who gain the authority to do so. Most importantly, the constitution needs to be interpreted, and someone needs to have the final say over this interpretation.

Under our system, those granted this ultimate authority are nominated by the president and approved by the Senate to serve in their posts for life. Sure, we dress them up in fancy robes and dress their decisions in Latin jargon, but the judges and ces of the federal judiciary are political appointees just like any other. And when the equal protection clause of the Constitution is interpreted by five Republican appointees to mean that Republicans have a right to the White House, their true, political nature becomes painfully obvious.

In periods of divided government, those who manage to navigate the Senate confirmation process to gain the power to interpret the Constitution authoritatively must necessarily represent a middle-ground between the ideological extremes at the fringes of the two major parties. With control over both the Senate and the Presidency, however, a single party can feel free to stack the court with as many ideologues as it chooses, ideologues whose life appointments insure that their power will long outlast that of the united government that appointed them. This will be the lasting legacy of Tuesday's election — a judiciary filled with those screened by The Federalist Society, a self-described right-wing legal group, rather than by the American Bar Association, as had been the practice since Eisenhower. It will be a wonder if all of our basic freedoms, including but hardly limited to a woman's right to choose, manage to survive under their watch.

Stewart is still pretty safe, for now. Nonetheless, if the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is looking for a new late-night host, it might not be a bad idea for him to consider . . . Michael Frazer is a graduate student in the politics department. He may be reached at mfrazer@princeton.edu.