We college students seem to be pretty apathetic about the Supreme Court. Oh sure, we can name activist groups at both ends of the political spectrum who care deeply and justly about a particular issue here or there. Most students, though, take an “I don’t bother it, it doesn’t bother me” approach to the highest court in the land.

But, to quote the man on “Family Guy” who lived in Peter’s brain: “that’s dangerous thinking.”

Don’t get me wrong, I understand why most of us don’t care about the Supreme Court. It is undeniably the most exclusive hangout for old people. It’s like a country club, expect there’s far less golf and far more discussions of pornography – thanks to Justice Potter Stewart’s “I know it when I see it” claim about hardcore pornography. Yeah, I bet you do, Potsie.

Which just goes to prove my claim that we students need to keep a better eye on the court. Sure, we know about the big issues the court faces, like abortion or gay rights. But the court has a funny habit of sneaking into places we don’t expect it. Stewart got to lecture us on porn. Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995) examined the ways student organizations can use university money (public money, that is) to publish their own viewpoints. Kelo v. New London (2005) seems to have given local governments the power to take your house and, I don’t know, put in a video arcade or something (they do have to give you compensation, though; probably in quarters) And in Gonzales v. Raich (1995), the court ruled that the federal government can bust people for medical marijuana (a decision that affects far fewer of you guys than you think … or hope).

And that’s just the things we already know about. In the next decade, the court will face issues we haven’t even heard of yet – some we probably can’t even imagine. As Jeffrey Rosen said in The New York Times Magazine, “but in the case of Supreme Court nominees, looking backward may not be the most reliable way to predict the future.” Genetics, biometric technology, even the internet present challenges we can just barely see coming. For many people on this campus, they also present future employment, making the issues all the more important.

These issues are just getting started, and even the ones the court has already chimed in on are far from over. We don’t know what the legal and political issues are going to be in the coming decades, which makes judging Supreme Court nominees dicey but essential.

We need to be interested in who gets nominated to the court, then. Hell, I think some of us need to try to get nominated ourselves. It’s not that tough – you don’t have to be an old white dude anymore, you don’t have to have practiced law, you don’t need to answer tough questions and you don’t even need to be that smart. And as Bush’s newest nominee, White House Counsel Harriet Miers proved, you don’t even need to be conservative.

Seriously, though, we should be utterly disappointed in Bush’s Supreme Court nominees. Not because we want progressives on the bench, and they’re probably not that, but because we need towering figures with vast intellects on the bench, and they’re definitely not that. John Roberts couldn’t be bothered, convinced or cajoled into telling us his positions on the issues of today – how can we expect him to view the issues of the future? Miers is the ultimate blank slate. Does she even have a judicial philosophy besides “Protect Bush?”

Now, I’m not saying that if we start putting pressure on him, Bush will change his mind and retract his nominees. But O’Connor won’t be the last justice to retire. So we need to educate ourselves. We need to acknowledge that we don’t know what’s coming next, if only so we can avoid a Justice who doesn’t care.

Craig Colbrook is a senior in communications. His column appears every Friday. He can be reached at [email protected].