The Supreme Court - It's time for a change

[Slyfox696]

When the founding fathers laid down the layout of the government of the United States, they preferred to have three branches of government, with a series of "checks and balances" to prevent any one arm of the government to become too powerful. While I argue those checks and balances are no longer being observed, that's not the point I wish to make.

When setting up the judicial system of the United States, the Supreme Court justices were given lifetime sentences as judges, presumably to free them from political opinion, allowing them the opportunity to simply gauge a case's constitutionality on its basic level. However, this is no longer the case. Judges are no longer free from politics, but rather exist because of them. Every Supreme Court justice today is put in office to serve a political agenda, not a noble and objective one. They are there to serve their political party's agenda and ideology, not the good of the nation.

Consider the following article on the 2006-2007 term. In it there are 15 rulings, which fall to 5-4 vote (one was actually 5-3 because Thomas didn't vote). When you look at those 15 different 5-4 votes, which cover a variety of issues, notice how the dissenting judges ALWAYS fall upon ideological lines. Either the dissenters were Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, or they were Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito. But they were always in those packs. How can anyone pretend that the Supreme Court is separated from political agenda? Is it just a coincidence that the same people always dissent together?

Link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-28-major-court-rulings_N.htm

So, what do we do? We change things. If our Supreme Court justices are going to be political agents, then we should treat them like we treat all of our political agents. We enforce term length, and we give the people the right to vote. How do we do it? Well, that is part of this discussion.

Do we enforce term limits and give the people the right to vote? How long would those limits be? What voting scale do we use (popular vs. Electoral College style)? Or do you think the Supreme Court is fine where it is?

In closing, I wish to submit a 10 minute clip from Boston Legal. While this is obviously a television show, the points made are very very good.

[youtube]PqlGoxfAkuU[/youtube]

 

[klunderbunker]

I would have to disagree. I think the current system, while it certainly has flaws, is indeed the best way to go. The checks and balances have to exist, if nothing else to keep things from leaning too far one way or another. If you take away the life limits, what's the benefit for being a judge? Why should a hotshot lawyer take a seat on a federal bench when they can make upwards of 10x what a judge makes in private practice? The simple answers: a legacy and job security. It's the same reason why being president is the most prestigious job there is: you leave your mark on the country forever.

The benefit of having life terms is very simple: you don't have to please voters. A Supreme Court justice doesn't have to please voters because what they think of him doesn't matter. I think it was Marshall that said I'm going to be on this court for the next 30 years no matter if you like me or not. (paraphrased) That's the benefit of being on the court in my eyes: you can make the proper decisions rather than the popular ones. As for what you said about the political affiliation, sure that exists and no matter what you do it's going to. Someone has to determine what's Constitutional and what isn't, and humans are going to lean one way or the other. There will always be swing voters, and there are on the current court.

Another key to me is that it takes a higher majority of agreement to make a law than it does to enforce a decision. By doing this, it prevents the group with the majority from dominating the law. The court also balances out the President and Congress. If a Democrat names a justice to the Supreme Court who is liberal, even if the next two or three presidents are conservatives, the liberals have a voice on the court still. To me, the system works as it allows for there to be a balance between views. Yes there certainly are flaws, but I think term limits aren't the way to go as it takes away the main power that the courts have.

 

[FromTheSouth]

This is an indictment on more than the Supreme Court. The entire judicial branch of the federal government has taken an activist stance. This problem exists on all levels and both parties. It is said that the Robert's court is pro-business, and it is predicted that this court will throw out anti-trust legislation is accordance with pro sports, eliminating the potency of the unions, and endangering pay scale, benefits, and player safety. At lower levels, the courts are secular progressive. Sotomayor is no different, ruling in a lower court that the New Haven Fire Department should be able to promote underperforming minorities instead of qualified whites in the most blatant abuse of Affirmative Action since its inception. When dealing with public safety, I would think that the best candidate should be promoted, but maybe that's just me.

That being said, out justice system is among the fairest and most efficient in the world. I would argue that lifetime appointments are to thank for that. While we do have our fair share of activism, over 90% of three judge panels in appellate courts issue unanimous verdicts. Ideology does not creep into most decisions. It's just that some situations almost taunt judges into ruling in a dramatic and nation altering way. This is why the principle of stare decisis comes up in every judicial hearing. Judges more and more wonder how they can not overturn precedent, when the precedents that get presented to them are further and further away from the moderate views of the Constitution and past interpretations. Still, there is no way to put judges up for elections. While the responsibility of electing the President has the most effect on the course of the nation, I would argue that the American people have less business electing judges than they do Presidents. The rulings and actions of judges are so esoteric sometimes that the average American can not fully grasp their intricacies. A ruling on publishing has far reaching effects from print media to broadcast media to a reinterpretation of obscenity law.

Furthermore, we cannot have campaigning judges promising to rule on certain matters before they have heard the pertinent facts. I would hate for the courts to constantly reflect the fickle nature of American politics. The judicial branch was made to prevent American legal thinking from straying too far to either ideological scale. I would argue that no judge is as extreme to either side of the spectrum once in office as they are made out to be even though sometimes, an activist ruling does slip through. Our system is not perfect, however, it is one of, if not the best in the world. I can deal with a few decisions I might not agree with because I have the understanding that I might not always understand all of the facts and past precedent.

Sure, courts have leaned one way or the other over time, however, Brown vs. The Board of Education and Roe vs. Wade are encouraging. The courts went past traditional stances by that particular permutation of judges and ruled in favor of the Constitution and the best interests of the country as a whole.