As the American people begin to gear up for the 2012 Presidential election, the issue of controlling the Supreme Court once again lands on the front burner.
And why does it matter?
It matters because the Supreme Court of the United States has become just another political branch of government. Just another center of power where people go to get what they can’t get from the Congress, or from their state legislatures.
Used to be folks argued about activist judges versus strict constructionists.
Conservative Justices were just supposed to interpret the laws and the Constitution. Stay out of the voting booth. Stay off the editorial pages. Leave the hot button issues to the representatives elected by the people.
Bush versus Gore put an end to that. If you’ve got a majority of the Court, you’re the seven hundred pound gorilla. You can do whatever you want to do.
Then again, maybe, just maybe, the stars are well aligned to talk about how to get back to basics. Lots of folks are ticked off with both parties. Tea and coffee parties have emerged because the folks don’t even want to be called Republicans and Democrats.
Independents are on the march. Here’s something they ought to be marching for: a non partisan Supreme Court.
Is that possible? Isn’t everyone something? Right, left or whatever. But not just nothing.
Well, of course, nobody’s just nothing. Every judge has principles and preferences, experiences and opinions. It’s human nature.
But almost all of the 50 states have found a way to insulate their judiciary from the nitty gritty of partisan politics. Non partisan elections, Missouri Plan nomination, appointment advisory boards. There are lots of ways to soften the hard edges of party loyalty.
So here’s my thought for the day:
THE NON-PARTISAN COURT AMENDMENT
The Supreme Court shall consist of the current nine justices and their successors who shall be appointed for eighteen year terms by the President, without confirmation, from among a panel of five candidates nominated by the Chief Justices of the highest courts of the several states.
The Court shall interpret the Constitution and its amendments as understood by the people who ratified them and shall render no opinion enlarging or diminishing the powers of the government or the rights of the people.
I submit that this amendment would put an end to talk of court packing, to Presidents appointing justices to promote political agendas, to Senatorial confirmation circuses, and to tottering, dottering old men and women sitting on their Supreme Court seats, waiting for their party to win the White House.
If you’re with me on this, let me hear from you.
2 comments:
I am not a lawyer, or a constitutional scholar, so I will not pretend to know the best way to reform the nominating process. However, I do firmly believe it needs to be reformed.
I am strongly in favor of term limits in all branches of government. Is 18 years appropriate? Why is it appropriate?
How does the second paragraph differ from what it written in the 9th amendment? Isn't that suppose to be the role of the court as it's written now?
I would also like to see some form of enforcement mechanism to reign in courts that are obviously legislating from the bench. There seems to be no practical way to check the powers of the Court once it rules (i.e. Citizens United)
Thank you for your efforts.
The ninth amendment addressed the proposition known in the law as "Expresio unius est exclsio alterious" which generally means that when you have a list of things whatever is left off the list is left off on purpose. So a constitutional provision which says that every male of a certain age shall have the right to vote does not prohibit younger males or females from being given the right to vote as well.
Admittedly the proposed non partisan amendment confirms what many constitutional scholars have always maintained: that the court interprets the law and does legislate. Still, spelling it out in the constitution may keep the court from creating new rights (like gay marriage) or rendering opinions that amount to enacting new state laws.
Post a Comment