Monday, May 19, 2008

The (In)Justices of the Supreme Court (part 3 of 5)

The makeup of The U. S. Supreme Court can be as crucial as the decisions that it makes. It has historically been the case that the presidents, the ones who make the nominations, try to “stack” the panel with judges who are sympathetic to their causes. Even more crucially is the fact that since justices have lifetime tenure, the choices made for the positions reach far beyond the period of time in which a president serves. A conservative justice can be chosen by a conservative president, and when that president is replaced by one who is not so conservative, the outgoing president’s choices may serve to circumvent the legislative goals of the newly elected, non-conservative president for years to come.

It is important to understand that this court is the highest in the land. When a decision has been handed down, that’s it – end of the line. If you feel that you’ve been given a raw deal, too bad. Consider the Dred Scott vs. Sanford case. This came at a time when lawmakers, politicians, ministers, and even a president or two owned slaves. In that time period, it would not be hard to fathom that those in power would fight to “stack” the bench in their favor. The Dred Scott Decision was not decided by one or two votes – it was nearly unanimous, with two dissenting justices, one who concurred with the ruling, but not with reasoning behind it. That left six (6) justices who agreed that slavery should remain in effect and that the presiding precedent of “once free, always free” should be totally disregarded. This case provides one very typical, very dangerous example of how the makeup of the court can have a profound and lasting impact on our lives.

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court has justices who were chosen by four (4) different presidents. Two (2) justices were appointed by a Democrat, William Clinton. The remaining justices, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., were appointed by Republican presidents: Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, and G.W. Bush. The most recent justice to step down, Sandra Day O’Connor, was also nominated by a Republican, Reagan. The last justice chosen by a Democratic president, prior to today’s bench, was back in 1967 – Thurgood Marshall, appointed by Lyndon B. Johnson. That is an extremely long period of time to have an unbalanced makeup of justices presiding over the land.

There are plans afloat, by those who which to make a change and who have taken the time to come up with some feasible suggestions, to alleviate not only the lifetime tenure, but, as well, a system that would change the makeup of the bench as an ongoing process. The changes would not be the sort that hit the headlines today and fade into obscurity tomorrow, but, instead, would impact this generation and the next in ways that most of us never imagined.

Please join me on Wednesday for Part 4, when we explore the suggestions that are in the works.

This is blackstarr saying “Vive La Renaissance!”

copyright © 2008 blackstarr

blackstarr52@gmail.com

5 comments:

CinShel said...

I firmly believe that the Justices of the Supreme Court should be nominated by a special HR / Senate Committee & not soley by the sitting President - How about the Democratic way similar to the "Delegate(s)" system / in the nominating process for the Democatic nominee for president -

Anonymous said...

What, no appeal?

I wonder what changes are in the works? I feel they serve far to long on the bench. I think Sheldon's idea sound feasible but then I can see a president not liking this as it usurps his (or her) power over the supreme court.

Let's Play said...

I, too, see the presidents not going for that. The system has to change. Wednesday or Thursday, I'm going to post the plan that is being pushed right now. Even with presidents choosing the justices, it sounds very good. Peace.

Anonymous said...

I can't believe I am watching this but as I am typing this I am watching a skit on Living Color on MY network TV showing David Alan Grier as Clarence Thomas. When Clarence realizes he has this job for a lifetime and nothing, NOTHING he does can get him fired he flips the script so to speak on the other judges. I think this fits well into what you have been blogging about with the supreme court. As comedic as this skit was I think it may be a case of art imitating life.

Let's Play said...

That's uncanny. Oh, it definitely is art imitating life! I think that is the main problem: these justices realize that they are basically untouchable. Therefore, they use their position to infuse their own beliefs into the law. Not good. I had a few problems today, but, I will continue on Thursday. Peace.