Shot in the Dark

Wrong Solution, Problem

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Senator Elizabeth Warren supports court-packing. That’s really embarrassing for a Harvard law professor. Even a night-school wonder like me, knows better.

The problem with the Supreme Court is not that it’s too small. The court is too large now, to get things done expeditiously and correctly: too many egos to sooth, too many agendas to accommodate, too many compromises requiring hair-splitting decisions.

The problem is not that the court is full of justices eager to overturn precedent. If a case was wrongly decided, it should be overturned in the interest of justice.

The problem is not that the court veers away from widely held public opinion. Pandering to public opinion is Congress’ job. And it’s mostly on volatile social issues where the Court has caused the worst problems.

The problem is Marbury v. Madison, a case decided fewer than 20 years after the Constitution was adopted. That’s the case in which the Supreme Court gave itself the power to throw out legislation the Court felt was incompatible with the Constitution. The court’s power-grab flatly contradicts the entire premise of a “enumerated powers” Constitution. That decision set up the Court to make historically and horrifically bad law: Dred Scott (struck down the Missouri Compromise which allowed slavery to spread to more states), Plessy v. Fergussn (upheld racial segregation); Korematsu (upheld concentration camps for American citizens); Roe v. Wade (upheld abortion on demand); Obergefell v. Hodges (struck down gay marriage laws nationwide).

Adding more justices to a run-away court won’t rein it in from ruling on social issues. A constitutional amendment is required. And if that doesn’t curb their enthusiasm, perhaps removal from office? A Harvard law professor should understand that.

Joe Doakes

There is limited evidence that Warren understands anything but getting and holding power.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

5 responses to “Wrong Solution, Problem”

  1. jdm Avatar
    jdm

    FDR didn’t seem particularly bothered by your arguments, JD. There is no enumerated limit on the size of the Supreme Court, just tradition. And we all know how Democrats feel about tradition. Moreover, as I recall, the Republicans on the court then got the message and stopped hindering FDR’s economic plans and policies.

  2. Emery Incognito Avatar
    Emery Incognito

    Yes — Elizabeth Warren has a plan and I disagree with most all of them.

    The solution to this problem is not court packing but term limits. Each justice (Chief and Associate) will get one 18-year term. These terms would be staggered so every two years on an odd (non-election) year, a justice will be appointed. This would reduced (but not eliminate) the political problems surrounding nominations. With a term limit:
    1) There will not be the perceived need to appoint younger and less experienced justices because of the desire to have someone sit on the bench 30+ years.
    2) We won’t have justices (such as RBG) clinging to the court long after they are no longer physically able to sit there in the hopes that the “right” president will appoint their successor.
    3) With the nominations evenly spaced, the Court would be reflect the mood of the people. A long spell of Democrat or Republican presidents would be reflected in the Court.
    4) The stakes won’t be as so high if everyone knows that two years from now there will be another appointment.

  3. Mammuthus Primigenesis Avatar
    Mammuthus Primigenesis

    The goal of the left is make the Supreme court a super-legislature, made up of lawyers, who can change the constitution with a simple majority vote.

  4. Emery Incognito Avatar
    Emery Incognito

    The main problem with this country as I see it is that Congress as has allowed it’s constitutional power to be land grabbed by the executive and judicial branches.

  5. Mammuthus Primigenesis Avatar
    Mammuthus Primigenesis

    All three branches of the federal government saw there power increase dramatically in the 20th century, at the expense of the states and individuals.
    This is literary poli-sci 101.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.