Let's face it. The thought of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia presiding over us for the next decade -- if not longer -- and doing their "right" best to reverse course and halt our progress as we try to move forward as a nation, should send shivers up any reasonably intelligent person's spine.
Granted, Chief Justice, John Roberts (a conservative), recently sided with the liberals on immigration, and, most importantly, health care. But, with all the talk surrounding the possible motivation behind Roberts' decision -- the least popular option being he believed it was best for the American people -- it doesn't exactly breed confidence in the judiciary.
Looking at the big picture, whether or not Roberts is for or against health care is practically irrelevant. The fact that the presumption exists he voted with the liberals to "preserve the integrity of the Court," and not because he felt it was the right thing to do for the American people, is a pretty scary thought.
We have a chamber full of "lifetime appointees" who've sided along party lines for so long, and in so many recent crucial decisions (Bush v. Gore, Citizen's United, Montana's campaign laws, etc.), they're actually in danger of turning the once-respected court into nothing more than a bunch of "Court Jesters." Presently, there's such fierce dissenting and infighting amongst the judges themselves, would anyone be surprised if they all were summoned before Judge Judy?
"Justice Scalia, you put gum on the seat of Justice Sotomayor. You owe her $685.14 for a new robe."
On the liberal side, the fact that Justice Ginsberg hasn't retired during Obama's current term makes things even more precarious. If Romney wins, and, five days later, Ginsberg decides she's had enough, that means a 6-3 conservative majority on abortion, gay marriage, etc. And, we didn't think things could get any worse.
The current approval rating of the Supreme Court is a measly 33 percent, up a bit from its all-time low of 28 percent just three months ago. In business, nothing screams A CHANGE IS NEEDED! like a low approval rating. If the Supreme Court were a publicly traded company, its largest shareholders would be leaping out windows as we speak.
Maybe that's the answer? Make Congress bet on the Court like Fantasy Baseball. The more money they lose, the more amenable they'll be to booting a few.
To put the whole "lifetime appointment" thing in perspective, try and remember, the folks whose idea it was to appoint Supreme Court justices for life had wooden teeth. This decision, made over 225 years ago when monarchies were the main form of government, was, for the most part, due to the fear that politics would play too much of a role if the judges had to worry about losing their jobs under the king. I wonder what they'd say today. Perhaps a slight revamp, Your Majesty?
Another, even more intriguing, but most-likely-doomed-to-failure, option is to do what Jonathan Turley, a professor of public interest law at G.W. suggests -- and that is follow the lead of our more advanced, overseas neighbors and appoint several dozen justices to the court.
Professor Turley points out Germany has 16 justices, Japan 15, Israel 15, and France uses 124 judges who are rotated. Either of these systems would be better than what we have now, and would, no doubt, dramatically cut down on the politics and power of our current system.
Turley also adds, there's nothing magic about the number nine. Our founding fathers didn't specify any number of justices, thus, if we, as a people, can threaten enough of our representatives with unemployment, they may be open to revisiting this way-too-out-of-date Constitutional provision. If they need a nostalgic opinion, simply present to them the words of Ben Franklin or George Mason, the orchestrator of the Bill of Rights: "Nothing is so essential to the preservation of a Republican government as a periodic rotation." (Insert Butthead laugh here.)
Whether you're for or against term limits, believe in increasing -- or decreasing -- the number of justices, or just feel we should leave everything alone, you have to agree; in today's incredibly fast-paced, technologically-driven society, it's a bit unnerving having nine, stuffy, old lawyers -- some of whom probably still have a subscription to T.V. Guide -- acting as the final word on future policy.
God forbid some bio-tech geek discovers the secret to immortality in the next five years. Video stores everywhere would have to move The Matrix into the non-fiction section.
Follow David Fagin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/nikchapman
had wrought.
Monarchy worked for thousands of years. The ink wasn't dry on our Constitution before the system was being abused and corrupted. We haven't even lasted three centuries, and in a true sense haven't even had a given culture or way of live last more than a couple of decades. I know the whole egalitarian thing sounds really good...but it only works with informed, rational human beings acting together for the greater good, not a bunch of ignorant (and glorying in it), rude (and glorying in it), self-involved (I think you get my point) sociopaths who have been explicitly trained to NOT cooperate, NOT think in terms of the greater good, and NOT be rational.
2. I would give anything for a monarch right now. There is at least a chance for a good person actually making good changes then...all we've got with this system is layers and layers of mistakes and attempts to fix those mistakes that got cut off because we just needed to have another election. Having a whole bunch of people whose jobs are to legislate forever and ever means that there will never, and can never, come a time when we have enough laws.
Think about it...in theory, there has to be a finite number of things that need to be illegal or regulated; but with a "legislative branch" that just keeps going on, forever and ever, they can't stop making laws...which is one of the reasons we have ended up with a huge set of sometimes contradictory and unnecessarily complicated laws where almost anyone can be arrested on violation of some law or another. Now, who does that ability serve...the public, or the politicians who want leverage over the public? What possible sense does it make to just keep making new laws, whether we need them or not, forever? Who does it serve...the American public at large or the political class?
However, since the Constitution was written the average life span has significantly increased. As a result, Justices are staying on the Court longer. For example, from the time the Court was first created until 1970, the average tenure of a Supreme Court Justice who retired or died in office was just under 15 years. For those leaving the Court after 1970, it has jumped to more than 25 years.
Judges, on the other hand, including Justices of the Supreme Court, are supposed to decide cases based on the law.
How do expect to legally achieve this?
We criticize Iran's democracy because they have a religious body that reviews and vettes political candidates before they can run for office. But we basically have the same thing, except it's a financial body.
I know that the current court has thrown out precedence in the past, but I would not want a justice attempting to rush a ruling before their term expires, conservative or liberal.
If we really want to talk about term limits, why not create a Constitutional Amendment to limit the amount of time our congressmen can be in office? Do they really need to have their jobs for life with periodic reaffirmations that they can stay in office? If the President is limited to eight years (two terms) why not limit congress to 12 years split in any combination between the two houses? Maybe then we will actually see some real change for the better when we get career politicians out of office. Instead of just worrying about campaigning for their next election cycle they can focus on doing their job.