I detest the idea of lifetime appointments, but also dislike the idea of justices being put up for elections, as it’d render them too susceptible to political influences. Perhaps one 8 year term would be better.
I personally think the country is getting more Liberal. Think of it - 10 (ten) years ago gay marriage was a taboo subject (and some years before that people like Ellen got shunned for coming out). Nowadays, comic book characters are portrayed as gay, and there are even adverts showing gay couples. That is just using one measure, but it shows how things have shifted. Goodness, if JFK rose and ran today he'd be too conservative for most GOP voters!
Anyway, to recap I get what the good Senator is proposing. I just think it is something that makes sense when one assumes that we will have a conservative administration in (near) perpetuity, and that the general electorate will remain mostly conservative. If that assumption is wrong, then it is a major mistake and could cost us severely (be it on gun rights, freedom of speech for those who don't agree with Liberal tenets, abortion, etc).
I'll say the same thing I said when almost 2 decades ago a Republican Administration proposed the Patriot Act. Simply put, 'don't assume Republicans will always be in power.'
I’m all for it.
They’ve certainly abused the trust the people have had in them. From Brennan to Thurgood Marshall to John Paul Stevens to Sandra Day O’Connor to Ruth Ginsburg to Breyer to Souter to Sotomayor to Kagan to Benedict Roberts, they have handed down Abominations like Roe V. Wade, Kelo vs. New London, and ObaMaoCare.
The list is long.
How about we start with term limits and mandatory retirement for Congress people.
So the court can sway with every new administration?
No thank you.
Ted is trying to make up for his complete screw up in getting Roberts appointed to the Supreme Court and ensuring a victory for Obamacare. Ted likes that Canadian socialize medicine he grew up with.
from Term Limits for the Supreme Court:
“Thomas Jefferson, for example, denounced life tenure as wholly inconsistent with our ordered republic.”
“Robert Yates, who wrote as Brutus during the ratification period,denounced life tenure for federal judges and the degree to which it separated courts from democratic accountability”
Seems like it has always been controversial but never changed.
There may be no solutions to the politicizing of the Supreme Court. But no one can deny it has been a constant source of political dissension in the country for the last few decades. I feel the politicizing of the Court can be laid to the machinations of the Democrat party to gain by Court decisions what they cannot gain thought popular legislation. Let’s take a look.
President Franklin Roosevelt was the first President to consider the political makeup of the Court as a solution to the problems he faced with Congress in implementing more socialistic programs than Congress felt was proper. He proposed to ‘pack” the Court with additional sycophant judges who would rule according to his desires. This effort failed and the original nine Justice setup from the Constitution survived.
Senator Ted Kennedy began the onslaught of negative criticism of judges based on their judicial philosophy during the hearings on a Republican nominee, Appeals Court Justice Robert Bork. The nastiness and unfair allegations against Judge Bork gave rise to a new word in the dictionary.”To defame or vilify (a person) systematically, esp. in the mass media, usually with the aim of preventing his or her appointment to public office; to obstruct or thwart (a person) in this way.”[38]
Bork responded, “There was not a line in that speech that was accurate.”[27] In an obituary of Kennedy, The Economist remarked that Bork may well have been correct, “but it worked.”[27 Wikipedia.
In more recent years, we have seen pleanty of Democrats, including Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and President Obama line up to deny other Republican Presidents the approval of their S. Ct nominees. They take the opposite and hypocritical position now.
Finally, we have the proven record of the liberal justices on the Court. They vote as a bloc on all major issues. The Republicans do some bloc voting as well, but over the recent decades, some conservative justices have voted with the liberal block on issues: Sandra Day O’Connor, Kennedy, and Roberts recently on the Obamacare matter. These conservative justices are usually called ‘swing voters’ which means that they are not known for bloc voting, but occasionally put their liberal interpretation of a Constitutional issue in what they perceive as either a legal imperative consonant with the Constitution—or what they perceive as the changing best interests of the country.
The sad truth is that the country is no longer ruled by Congress and the President when it comes to difficult issues that face us, but by whatever majority of five unelected partisans rule. This is the classic rule by oligarchy and was never contemplated by the writers of the Constitution.
I don’t know if it can be fixed.