Posted on 09/02/2011 11:50:24 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
WASHINGTON Rick Perry, like other conservatives, has lots of complaints about the Supreme Court: The justices, he says, have meddled in social policy, stepped on state power and generally run amok.
One solution the governor embraces is to end lifetime tenure - a cornerstone of the Constitution, whose drafters worried far less about activist or senile judges than about meddling tyrants and political pressure.
The idea isn't original, and it's not limited to conservatives. Some scholars on the left have also embraced the idea as a correction for judges serving too long.
It began to percolate in the 1980s and '90s after a series of bruising Senate confirmation fights, although it's never gained much traction. A handful of bills and proposed constitutional amendments have been filed in Congress in recent years to little effect. But Perry's embrace of the idea, combined with his states' rights principles, may demonstrate how he would push as president to change the balance of power in the federal government.
Perry, in his anti-Washington book "Fed Up!," derides the high court as "nine oligarchs in robes" and writes: "We should take steps to restrict the unlimited power of the courts to rule over us with no accountability."
Perry devotes an entire chapter to his indictment of the judiciary. The proposal to eliminate life tenure is barely a footnote, but that's enough to inspire sharp passions.
"Most lawyers would be against this," said Laurel Bellows, president-elect of the American Bar Association. "If you are a strict constructionalist - which apparently the governor isn't because he's looking to amend the Constitution - you would have respect for the wisdom of the Framers."
Perry's stance is remarkable in the sense that presidents have long viewed the power to shape the judiciary as one of the prizes that comes with winning the White House.
That's why the stakes are so high and the fights so fierce when a rare Supreme Court vacancy arises. It's a key reason President George W. Bush picked a 50-year-old conservative, John Roberts, as chief justice, planting seeds of a legacy that could persist for decades longer than his own presidency. And it's unclear if more frequent confirmation fights would insulate the judiciary or make it even more politicized.
At Alliance for Justice, a liberal advocacy group, president Nan Aron noted that five of nine current justices were appointed by Republicans.
Railing against the judiciary is an effective way for Perry to attract conservative voters, she said, but "I don't know that he's fully thought that through. ... He would want his judges to serve for life."
Paul Carrington, a Duke University law professor and former dean who has led the effort to impose term limits, agreed that the current system breeds arrogance.
He called it "nuts" to let octogenarians run the country. "It's ridiculous to have a person sitting in a position of that much power for 30 or 40 years," he said.
“He also wants to be able to overturn SC decisions by a 2/3 vote of Congress. Thats a two edged sword. I’d leave it be.”
Yeah, it’s one thing to pretend justices are interested in nothing but the law, or that they know what they’re talking about in the first place (which is often hard to tell). Perhaps there’s a better balance we could strike. It’s quite another to throw the Constitution into the swamp and subordinate the law to democracy, even super-majority reporesentative democracy. Yuck.
Quick question, name the three longest serving supreme court chief justices?
As some of our fundamental rights bounced up and down like a rubber ball? We could be free men in one Congressional session and criminal felons the next. And imagine the congressional campaigns that would be driven by such a system. Again, no thanks.
Black, Stevens and Burger?
Chief Justices.
Burger rings in at number 5.
The person who wrote this is an idiot. The Constitution itself allows for its own amendment. A strict constructionist would say, "Amend it according to the process set out in the constitution, and you have correctly applied the Constitution to itself."
I don’t think it would make a difference.
Okay. Marshall and Rehnquist are all I can up with. Along with Burger.
I think every government job should have term limits.
Seems to me that conservatives don’t think far into the future. What sounds good under a republican dominated government can bite you hard under a democrat led government.
Our government is supposed to act slowly.
As our Framers feared, we have become a debauched people, who have sent far too many dirtbags to govern us. With such people unanchored by morality and devoid of virtue, can we expect Constitutional government?
Also, the Framers never seriously considered a popularly elected Senate. The 17th really screwed things up.
“This doesn’t follow. By that reasoning we wouldn’t have ended slavery by amending the constitution”
Liberals either actually do or only pretend to think conservatives are racists, and as such have absolutely no problem believing a strict constructionist for consistency’s sake must have opposed the 13th amendment. They are also periodic morons, so I’m not surprised.
The “population” that elected Obama?
I’m all in favor of term limits for both liberal judges and liberal Congress men... flush them out soon as possible! LOL!
He’s wrong on this. SC is fine. Congress can pass laws/ammend Constitution to offset judicial activism. Big problem is Congress. Starting with the popular election of Senate. Founding Fathers got it right.
I agree.
Marshall died at 80, Taney died at 87, Fuller at 77.
Marshall was appointed at 46, Taney at 59 and Fuller at 55.
All lived during the 19th century. If lifespans are longer now, you would expect the longest serving chief justices to be the recent ones, but that’s not the case.
Lifespans are not necessarily longer now, but the average life expectancy is,... mostly due to higher infant mortality in earlier times.
If you have two people and one live to be 90 and the other dies at one month old, the average life expectancy is 45, but the longest lifespan is 90.
If you have two people and one lives to be 70 and the other dies at 50, the average life expectancy is 60 and the longest lifespan is 70.
This is how the medical industry ‘games’ the system - by saving more youngsters, and not necessarily by providing more time at the end of life - - oh don’t get me wrong, the medical establishment might have actually given each of us a couple of years at the end of our lives. Is it quality time? ...And at what cost?
Saved me the trouble of posting. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.