Devil you know? Clinton would give us Supreme Court from hell

In addition to nettlesome questions about foreign policy, the economy and which of the two sorry excuses for presidential candidates is most crooked – it's Hillary, by the way – two others loom large in this upcoming make-your-skin-crawl election.

They center on the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court for the next generation or so and which political party will control the Senate that confirms the justices. The answers will affect each and every American, perhaps in ways unimaginable, and, in large part, determine the nation's course for the foreseeable future.

For Alaska, the questions are especially important with the state's long history of conflict with the federal government on issues such as fish and game management, resource extraction and access.

At stake initially is one vote on the court, a court more powerful today than at any time in history, and one vote can create a tsunami of change.

In 2007, one vote upheld a ban on partial-birth abortions. Then, there was District of Columbia v. Heller, in 2008, and McDonald v. Chicago, in 2010, that upheld Americans' Second Amendment rights. "Obamacare" survived by a single vote in 2012. In 2013, the court, by one vote, declared unconstitutional an outmoded provision of the Voting Rights Act that usurped local elections control. Two years later, one vote allowed marriage between same-sex partners. One vote.

[In bashing Donald Trump, some say Ruth Bader Ginsburg just crossed and important line.]

That one vote should be enough to send voters galloping to the polls. The GOP's Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton have made the court's composition a campaign centerpiece, with each promising dire consequences if the other is elected.

The court in recent years has leaned conservative and now liberals are panting to have a shot at filling the vacancy created by originalist Justice Antonin Scalia's death in February. The court is split 4-4, with an equal number of conservative and liberal justices – although political labels never guarantee their votes. Since Scalia's death, the court has avoided deadlocks in all but about 7 percent of its cases, a CNBC analysis of 60 recent cases concludes.

If the next president wins two terms – and 13 previous presidents were elected to, and completed, two terms – he or she could appoint as many as four, or perhaps more, justices on the aging court. Four justices have served on the bench for 20 to 30 years;. Their average age is 69. Two are 80 or older. One is 78, four are in their 60s and one is just a kid at 56.

A president, however, is far from the last word on court nominees, as Barack Obama discovered. He nominated Merrick Garland, now chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to fill Scalia's seat, but Senate Republicans refused to confirm him – even refused a hearing – hoping for a Republican presidential victory in November.

Senate control plays a pivotal role in justice selection. With 60 votes needed to clear the procedural vote hurdle in the Senate, and a simple majority for the final vote, the party with a majority has a lot to say about nominations – and survival of the current GOP majority hinges on this election.

A New York Times' Senate forecast "gives Democrats a 60 percent chance of winning control of the chamber in November. Included within this 60 percent is a 17 percent chance that the Senate ends up evenly split with a Democratic vice president providing the tie-breaking vote."

For his part, Trump has offered a list of 11 conservative state and federal judges he would consider nominating. Most drew approval from conservatives.

Clinton is not tipping her hand, but she pushes LGBT issues, health care, immigration, abortion rights and she does not like guns, even telling a private fundraiser in New York last October "the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I'm going to make that case every chance I get." Any choice by her would likely would push the court left for the foreseeable future and be the first court since 1969 to have five justices appointed by Democratic presidents.

With so much at stake, it is not uncommon to run into decent, educated people who, even now, will shrug their shoulders and tell you, "I don't bother to vote. It just doesn't matter." November's election, in many ways, is for all the marbles. It does matter. The Supreme Court vacancy makes it matter.

A liberal shift of the Supreme Court bench would open the door for left-leaning justices who view the Constitution as a "living" document to write law from the bench, put their stamp on the latest social engineering whim, grow government and abuse Americans' individual rights.

In a very real sense, this election is about the future.

It is sad our choices are so limited.

Paul Jenkins is editor of the AnchorageDailyPlanet.com, a division of Porcaro Communications.

The views expressed here are the writer's and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary@alaskadispatch.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@alaskadispatch.com or click here to submit via any web browser.