The Corruption and Decay of the Supreme Court
Just to be clear, I happened to agree with and applaud the SCOTUS decision today regarding Second Amendment rights. You may see it differently, I know, but that’s one of the great things about our country. We can disagree on things like that. I just feel that the Second Amendment speaks to an individual right to keep and bear arms, not a right restricted to members of the militia. No, my problem today is not with what the Supreme Court decided, but once again with how they decided it. So if you are here looking for a long diatribe on the Heller case, move along. Nothing to see here.
I have now lost track of how many consecutive decisions the Supreme Court has handed down on a 5-4 split. And not surprisingly, you keep seeing the same four people on opposite and predictable sides for each question with one “swing vote” in the middle. (That being Justice Kennedy.) In any sort of sane world envisioned by the framers of our form of government, this simply would not happen.
The law is the law. It is neither conservative nor liberal, not red or blue, not Republican or Democrat. It’s simply a body of legislative work which must always pass constitutional muster when challenged. Supreme Court appointments were intended to be for a lifetime precisely to remove them from politics and bias or the influence of a fickle and shifting electorate. There are nine of them because the Constitution is not alway clear (and frequently silent) when questions are put to it, and the justices obviously will not always agree on all the fine points of interpretation. But the situation we have reached today is ridiculous to the point of parody.
People speak in unabashed terms about how we have “x number” of conservative justices and “y number” of liberal judges. Can we not see the poison we have injected into one of the most important functions in our judicial system? There shouldn’t be any conservatives or liberals on that bench. And in the majority of cases, impartial justices should be able to achieve a consensus much closer to unity on legal questions. (Or, at the very least, have more of a random sampling of which justices come down on which side.)
Our presidents have stacked the deck with a continuing parade of partisan hacks. I’ve fallen victim to this gang mentality myself. Being more of a social moderate-to-liberal, Libertarian type, I found myself worried that the court was “drifting too far to the right” for my tastes. Well, I’m as bad as many of the rest of you. With that admission taken care of, I would propose a new way to vet nominees for SCOTUS: leave it to the blogs.
Here’s how it should work. As soon as a nominee is suggested, turn the name over to Powerline and Daily KOS. If you find one of them saying, “Look at how badly this clown ruled on Coyote vs. Roadrunner in 2003! We can’t have this idiot on the court!” do a quick check of the other blog and see if they are saying, “The excellent ruling in the 2003 Coyote vs. Roadrunner decision clearly indicates this is an excellent choice.” Should we find both of these conditions present, toss the candidate out on their ear.
But if we manage to find a candidate that has John Hindraker saying, “Oh my God! Look how they ruled in Tom vs. Jerry! No way!” and then you see Markos Moulitsas Zúniga screaming, “Are you kidding me? Their ruling on Micky vs. Minnie clearly shows they MUST be fillibustered!” well… you may just have yourself a winner. If we restrict our choices to those judges who completely enraged the hyperpartisans on both sides at one time or another, we might just begin to repair our highest court.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
25 Responses to “The Corruption and Decay of the Supreme Court”
Which is why it will be soooo important to get an electable candidate on the ballot this November.
Define electable? OK: a candidate who not only pulls in minority support, but who has the women behind her and moderates as well. And who has the experience during our nation's crises to gain large numbers of voter confidence vs lesser numbers for her rival. The math of who can unite democrats will be the deciding factor of who should've been chosen. Why did I say “should've”? Because stubborness and blind, short-sighted political ambitions will outweigh common sense as it always does.
Maybe in four years we'll have a democrat able to appoint Supreme Court justices.
I completely agree with you Jazz. As a pre-law student who's been forced to read case after case of Supreme Court decisions, it has often baffled me how the court reached some of there decisions. However I would argue that the justices can never really be sheltered from developing or pandering towards partisan ideology. After all the justices are political appointees…
Silhouette is definitely a troll, or the biggest crybaby to post on TMV in quite a while.
Now, now… Sil is just a very ardent supporter of Senator Clinton with some unresolved “issues” from the primary.
(Just teasing you, Sil.)
Thanks for your other comments and insight on the court, Sh0ter. I wouldn't mind if the court ruled in ways i didn't like fairly often as long as they were consistent and nonpartisan in their interpretation of the constitution. The system was a good idea in the beginning, but it failed to take into account the partisan nature of the presidnets who would do the nominating and the similarly partisan nature of the congresscritters who would be doing the confirmations.
“I have now lost track of how many consecutive decisions the Supreme Court has handed down on a 5-4 split.”
That is easy. One. Today's Heller case.
Neither of the other two rulings today were 5-4, and only one of four yesterday, and one of three Monday. That is three out of ten this week, and this term has been noted for the significant reduction of 5-4 votes, even with the late-term 'flurry'.
Additionally, Kennedy has been on the 'losing' side of 5-4 votes this year (after having none last year), and there has been commentary at both SCOTUSBlog and The Volokh Conspiracy about the breakdown this year in a significant number of cases of the traditional left/right voting blocks.
But why let facts get in the way of a good rant?
Correction. I am not an ardent supporter of Clinton, but what her campaign represents. If she herself stood up and told me to my face to vote for Obama, I would not and would instead write her in this Fall.
If she ordered me to vote for Obama this Fall, I would not, for the common sense reasons I stated above. If she got on her knees and begged me to vote for Obama, I would not, for the above reasons.
It's not about Hillary Clinton, it's about Hillary Clinton being a wise choice for the job position at hand. THE WISEST choice between the two democratic figurheads running for office.
And Shoter, don't trolls get banned? OK, I see why you need me to be a troll instead of a reasonable poster. Censurship. Obama supporters are adamantly into gagging people in support of the Clinton figurehead as candidate. And this is another example.
Since SC judges are inevitably going to have political biases, the most important attribute I look for is the respect they show for precedent. That's an indication of how 'activist' someone is, and consequently, how much partisan rage he will inspire.
A willingness to make u-turn decisions by one court creates the politization of the nomination-to-confirmation process for subsequent judges.
Roberts and Alito both attested respect for precedent, but then showed an eagerness to completely disregard it. Thus, they have ensured that the next addition to the SC will arrive amid great political furor. .
I wonder if a career in law practice itself does not elicit a crusader mindset, since a lawyer's job is to press one side and to walk all over the other side of the argument.
Maybe we need to look at different career pools to fill openings in the SC.
Academics? Public office?
I support the SC's decision on handguns- I believe that individuals do have the right to bear arms.
She's not running for office anymore.
And what's this about her having experience in a crisis? What crisis would that be?
It just so happens that I'm an Obama supporter. I don't need you to come off as a troll, you do it for yourself. I really just don't see how discussion of Clinton fits into this topic. Therefore, to me it seems that you're just whining because the political process didn't work out in your favor this time. But don't fret, 2012 is right around the corner. =)
runsasim nailed it
runsasim nailed it
Does anyone know if previous generations of the SCOTUS were indeed less split than the current one or has this been par for the course for 200 years? (I realize that's a big question.)
In general, I see runasim's point about precedent. However, some of the most important cases in SCOTUS history have been ones where they reversed precedent. Overulling earlier decisions such as Dred Scott, etc.
Does anyone know if previous generations of the SCOTUS were indeed less split than the current one or has this been par for the course for 200 years? (I realize that's a big question.)
In general, I see runasim's point about precedent. However, some of the most important cases in SCOTUS history have been ones where they reversed precedent. Overulling earlier decisions such as Dred Scott, etc.
Runi – and of course the complete lack of respect for precedence practiced by the Warren and Berger courts didn't count, huh?
Runi – and of course the complete lack of respect for precedence practiced by the Warren and Berger courts didn't count, huh?
[...] scattered all around the political spectrum: MyDD (Left); Hot Air (Right); Crooks and Liars (Left); The Moderate Voice (Center); Don Surber (Right); Stop The ACLU (Right); Drudge Retort (Left) Bookmark: Tags: 1st [...]
Pacatrue, and AR,
Yes,reversals of precedent have occured and sometimes they made a change possible when political bodies couldn't manage it.
The operative word is 'somehimes'. and then it's a judgment call, as to whether or not it was justified.
The same argument goes on endlessly about states' rights vs Fed imperative.
Desegragation took the National Guard to implement.
The importance of precedent, however, is – on the whole- to prevent sudden lurches. IMO, social stability iis of primary importance. So, I would expect and honor a court's trimming or adjusting previous rulings, but a series of u-turn reversals sets the stage for retributions in future appointments.
I would think conservatives would see the wisdom of that, since it is part of thieir basic philosophy to undertake changes gradually and cautiously.
There are no absolutes in this argument.: no NEVER and no ALWAYS.
To prevent further politization, however, I think u-turn decisions should come seldom and only when gradual steps have been exhausted.and proved to be unworkable.
Pacatrue, and AR,
Yes,reversals of precedent have occured and sometimes they made a change possible when political bodies couldn't manage it.
The operative word is 'somehimes'. and then it's a judgment call, as to whether or not it was justified.
The same argument goes on endlessly about states' rights vs Fed imperative.
Desegragation took the National Guard to implement.
The importance of precedent, however, is – on the whole- to prevent sudden lurches. IMO, social stability iis of primary importance. So, I would expect and honor a court's trimming or adjusting previous rulings, but a series of u-turn reversals sets the stage for retributions in future appointments.
I would think conservatives would see the wisdom of that, since it is part of thieir basic philosophy to undertake changes gradually and cautiously.
There are no absolutes in this argument.: no NEVER and no ALWAYS.
To prevent further politization, however, I think u-turn decisions should come seldom and only when gradual steps have been exhausted.and proved to be unworkable.
Jazz, By questioning “the same four people on opposite and predictable sides for each question” instead of questioning the “same five people…” you have framed and answered your own question and the title you chose for this thread merely reinforces the depth of your opinion.
Someone once said that the easiest way to change your perception is by changing your position… This court has done just that in the last few years and until they change their “position” again we should expect to see a lot of these “5 to 4″ rulings in favor of conservative thought. No need to act surprised, it's a new court.
Jazz, By questioning “the same four people on opposite and predictable sides for each question” instead of questioning the “same five people…” you have framed and answered your own question and the title you chose for this thread merely reinforces the depth of your opinion.
Someone once said that the easiest way to change your perception is by changing your position… This court has done just that in the last few years and until they change their “position” again we should expect to see a lot of these “5 to 4″ rulings in favor of conservative thought. No need to act surprised, it's a new court.
If you believe that Alito and Roberts were chosen because they were supposed to uphold judicial precedent, I've got a nice cheap bridge to sell you! They were chosen so that the court could undo what conservatives perceive as the judicial activism of the last 30 years.
If you believe that Alito and Roberts were chosen because they were supposed to uphold judicial precedent, I've got a nice cheap bridge to sell you! They were chosen so that the court could undo what conservatives perceive as the judicial activism of the last 30 years.
Sil- Give it up already about Hillary Clinton. I voted for her too, but its a lost cause.
Sil- Give it up already about Hillary Clinton. I voted for her too, but its a lost cause.