A friend just returned from several months in England and reported that a lot of folks over there still have good things to say about President Obama. Europe’s memory of eight years of George W. Bush’s arrogant foreign policy apparently lingers longer than our domestic dream of building a lasting progressive majority. Should we be surprised that Americans are less patient?

What did surprise me, though, is that many of the pro-Obama Brits also told my friend that they admire the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)—not necessarily the current right-leaning lineup, but the institution itself, the only court specifically established by the U.S. Constitution.

“They said they wish they had a judicial check on Parliament,” the friend said.

Whether or not Americans agree that this feature of our system of governance kicks ass, what’s pretty clear is that a lot of us take it for granted.

But the Supreme Court’s impact shouldn’t be underestimated.

In the contested presidential race of 2000, SCOTUS decided that the Florida vote recount was unconstitutional, effectively appointing Bush president. Some critics argued reasonably that the mess proved we ought to ditch the archaic Electoral College system of regional favoritism and just declare the candidate with the most votes the winner. But other critics of the SCOTUS decision went off the hyperbolic deep end, glibly declaring the U.S. a fascist state with an illegitimate, unelected president. The decision may have been the Supreme Court’s worst ever, but what people forget is that it was hardly a unanimous decision: The 5-4 ruling was as divided as the philosophies of the judges themselves.

What would’ve happened had there been no Supreme Court to arbitrate that volatile dispute?

The current crisis in Ivory Coast gives us one possible indication: After the Nov. 28 election, both incumbent president Laurent Gbagbo and opposition candidate Alassane Ouattara declared themselves the winner. They even held parallel swearing-in ceremonies. Gbagbo’s Constitutional Council declared him the winner, but the nation’s Election Commission and the United Nations say Ouattara won. As I write, Gbagbo refuses to leave his palace and his soldiers guard the government-run TV station, which blasts anti-Ouattara propaganda and certainly doesn’t report on the military hit squads terrorizing opposition supporters throughout the country.

Of course, Ivory Coast is a poor country plagued by years of civil war. There are armed rebel factions, foreign intervention and so forth. It’s unlikely the U.S. would’ve exploded in this level of violence in 2000 had it reached an unresolved stalemate. We’ll never know because Gore did the right thing to accept the Supreme Court’s ruling, regardless of whether he agreed with it. We have enduring institutions, the persistence of which we regard as more important than demanding that things always go our way.

What happened in 2000 was an anomaly. The Supreme Court will (hopefully) never decide another election. What will continue to happen again and again is the converse: Presidents will appoint Supreme Court justices. The justices will serve lifetime appointments. They’ll make decisions that impact your life just as much as any president or congress.

Of course, those disappointed in Obama for cutting a deal with the Republicans on taxes (extending tax breaks for the wealthy for two years in exchange for extending unemployment benefits) or disappointed in him for any number of other reasons have a right to be disappointed.

I’m not going to go into why I think the deal was a good one, nor am I going to open up a discussion about any of the other reasons you might be irked by the president; there’s not enough space to do that here, and I’m frankly tired of having to explain the complexity of the political process and the nature of strategy and compromise in governance every time one of my friends expresses anger that the president hasn’t walked on water. Some of the criticisms may be valid, but where is the praise for Obama having accomplished more for progressives than any other first-term president in history? Where is the relief over his nomination of Elena Kagen and Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court?

Presidents come and go, but the Supreme Court will be there, ruling on cases that affect you for your entire life—issues of corporate power, human rights, speech, privacy, discrimination and so forth.

So, if you’re not into the president as president, think of him as the potential key to turning the Supreme Court around.

Consider that the current Reagan and Clinton appointees by are aging. Kennedy is 74, as is arch-conservative and influential Reagan appointee Antonin Scalia. Two of the court’s liberal Clinton appointees are also aging: Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 77, and Stephen Breyer is 72. There’s no certainty that Obama will be called on to nominate any more than the two justices he already has, but he’ll be more likely to do so given another four years in office.

If an improving economy and ongoing efforts by the president to make the most of a difficult political climate don’t convince you that he’s worthy of fighting to re-elect in 2012, consider his continued tenure at least as a means for preserving a liberal presence or securing a liberal majority on the court, and be prepared to rally around his re-election after the coming year, during which he must contend with a conservative House of Representatives.

If you find liberal anger creeping up on you, just try to keep this question handy: If you don’t help keep the most viable Democrat in the White House, then who chooses your next Supreme Court justice?

Write to dak@sdcitybeat.com and editor@sdcitybeat.com.