The current frenzy over the vacancy on the Supreme Court in the wake of Scalia’s death should be enough to make it clear to even the most naïve observer that the Supreme Court is a partisan and political institution, and nothing like the group of disinterested non-political sages that we are supposed to believe the court to be. As I wrote in “The Mythology of the Supreme Court,” the idea of the court as a group of jurisprudential deep thinkers is a tale for little school children:
This view of the court is of course hopelessly fanciful, and the truly political nature of the court is well documented. Its politics can take many forms. For an example of its role in political patronage, we need look no further than Earl Warren, a one-time candidate for president and governor of California, who was appointed to the court by Dwight Eisenhower. It is widely accepted that Warren’s appointment was payback for Warren’s non-opposition to Eisenhower’s nomination at the 1952 Republican convention. The proposition that Warren somehow transformed from politician to Deep Thinker after his appointment is unconvincing at best. Or we might point to the famous “switch in time that saved nine” in which Justice Owen Roberts completely reversed his legal position on the New Deal in response to political threats from the Franklin Roosevelt administration. Indeed, Supreme Court justices are politicians, who behave in the manner Public Choice theory tells us they should. They seek to preserve and expand their own power.
Greg Abbott of Texas has been calling for a constitutional convention. One of the items on his list for consideration is that a two-thirds majority of the states would be able to overturn a supreme court decision. Given the political nature of the court, this is a good idea, and might serve as a check on the court’s power.
They need to be replaced with a trio of Pre-Cogs…
Chuck Schumer screamed like a mashed cat in an election year for Bush not to be allowed to appoint a judge.
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, he’s screaming for Obama to nominate a judge.
Not gonna happen, Chuckie. At least McConnell is finally showing some balls and won’t let the process move forward.
Are you saying a ‘wise Latina’ doesn’t know what’s best for me?
Racist!
Do NOT count on McCONel to use his backbone.
politically activist supreme court is a very serious problem.
The 2/3 states overturn idea is a good one but finding a way to change the nominate process to get actual judges who don’t GAF about politics would be a better way.
Why don’t we hold special elections every 4 to 6 months and vote on
each item. I never got the chance to vote on gay marriage.
Or
Legalizing drugs.
Eliminate the court and let the citizens vote themselves.
The first time a Justice solemnly proclaims the Constitution to be a living document that needs to be updated by them it’s time to impeach and move them off the court post haste!
An Excellent article on what needs done.
As to a constitutional Convention . . . .
If we can’t trust the bastards now . . .
why would we let them into the Constitution?
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/did_justice_scalia_already_give_us_the_solution_to_the_problem_of_filling_his_seat.html
When justice is politicized, there is no true justice.
We need a Supreme Court only because there are too many politicians who don’t understand/don’t care about the Constitution or individual rights. In the long view, a Supreme Court is necessary.
However, lifetime appointments should be banned. The next Supreme Court justice could conceivably last through the next 3 Presidents and a dozen or so Congressional terms. Because the Supreme Court is more or less constant due to this longevity, more and more power tends gather in that institution – particularly as Congress seems more inclined to punt on any tough issues.
Still waiting for the lawyers to reform the justice system ….
But that’ll have to wait until every one of them
takes everything from everyone else.
When ObamaCare or Gay Marriage or any other of a host of hot button issues faces the SCOTUS, there is one irrefutable fact that seldom gets mentioned.
While people might jawbone endlessly about where Roberts of Kennedy or others of the purported “right” side of the court might ultimately weigh in, NOBODY spends a thimble-full of ink or a moment of air time wondering where the fat-fingered Lesbian Kagan, the “Wise” Latina, The smug, raptor-like America hating Jewess, or the self-loathing white man, Breyer, will rule.
They are 100% Leftards, straight down the line. Money, in the bank, for the Lefty cause.
Which is why the justices need to face the American voter, just like other party hacks have to. You wanna play politics? That makes you a politician, which is what the lifetime appointment was meant to avoid in the first place.
Shy of that, abolish the court and throw everthing back to the states.
The US Government was designed in three parts, in order to keep too much power from accumulating in any one branch. It’s like a 3-legged stool: cut off one leg, and it won’t work. As I see it, the biggest problem we are dealing with today stems from the overwhelming power and influence of political parties, which the Founding Fathers never intended or anticipated. Once one Party gains complete domination of two or more branches of government, it tends to run roughshod over the other Party. This leads to bitterness and resentment, not to mention bad laws. That, in turn, produces the kind of unrest, divisiveness and gridlock we have seen in Washington in recent years.
If I had unlimited power to change the system, I would start by making national political parties unconstitutional, as well as professional lobbyists. Want to change the system? Vote, or run for office. Optionally, I suppose you could start another Revolution, but hopefully things would never get that bad.
😉
P.S. Here’s what one President had to say on the subject in his farewell address to the Nation:
“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
― George Washington
I think the 2/3 of the states to overturn is too high a bar. How about a simple 51% of the house of reps vote of approval before any SCOTUS ruling is valid.
I’m still hoping for Secession.
The real problem with SCOTUS, too many people (lawyers) think the justices are there to determine if the Constitution applies to a case. It should be to determine if a case applies to the Constitution. If not, it’s a States issue, send it back or refuse to hear it.
Shut it down and replace it with something that actually works For The People.
“This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.” – Justice Scalia
I don’t trust anyone that has no chin let alone balls
There should be only one Supreme Court judge. And that judge should be Punxsutawney Phil.
@rechill: FYI, that’s been tried. It ended badly.
🙂