As we move past President Obamas 100th day of office it looks like the next thing on the horizon likely to cause a ruckus is going to be who Obama decides to nominate as his Supreme Court justice to replace Justice Souter. Now the majority of conservatives feel that while Souter was appointed by Bush the first he in the end was more of a liberal then a conservative and is often thought of as a mistake when people look at Bush's appointments.
I would argue that while the world changed around him. That as the popular definition of liberal and conservative shifted over the years since he was appointed. Justice Souter continued to be consistent in the way he voted and the way that he looked at the law. To me this doesn't highlight a problem with Justice Souter but it highlights a problem with the Supreme Court in general.
For a country that claims to be a democracy I think it is a travesty that the highest court in the land is made up of life time presidential appointed positions. Now while theoretically this is supposed to protect them from the pressures of running for office and to stop them from looking for money or being at risk of undue influence. When in reality due to the nature of the position the Justice is under the influence of whatever President appointed them.
This is the problem with the Supreme Court it should not be made up of lifetime appointees who are then expected to rule based upon a political position as opposed to how the law reads. That is what the ultimate litmus test should be not the political administration that appointed said Justice but what the law reads that they are ruling on.
With this as the criteria it makes it a little easier to look at the Justices and they way that they rule and under these conditions I think Justice Souter did the job he was hired to do. I just hope President Obama picks a Justice that will respect the law in the same way and not one who they must rule based on the political position of the office that appointed them.
4 comments:
When in reality due to the nature of the position the Justice is under the influence of whatever President appointed them.Well, and congress, who might be very opposed to the president's ideas.
Both systems (temporary, elected and permanent, appointed) have their flaws, and I'm very loathe to change what the founding fathers came up with.
I totally understand CT. But I wonder I think the Supreme Court goes against the Democratic that we have due to the lifetime appointments.
Ok, Lance, how DO you possibly make this all work out in your head? You said,
"Now the majority of conservatives feel that while Souter was appointed by Bush the first he in the end was more of a liberal then a conservative and is often thought of as a mistake when people look at Bush's appointments."
and,
"I would argue that while the world changed around him. That as the popular definition of liberal and conservative shifted over the years since he was appointed. Justice Souter continued to be consistent in the way he voted and the way that he looked at the law. "
and,
"...in reality due to the nature of the position the Justice is under the influence of whatever President appointed them."
Leaving aside the fact that any substantive shifting between left and right occurred at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries, not the 20th/21st, where the only changes since the 1980's have been that of becoming starker polarizating of positions, not shiftings; you say that the worlds definitions of left and right shifted around him while "he continued as he always had"... yet the politicians, including the Bush who appointed him, considered Souter his greatest mistake as President - presumably they being politicians, that means that politicaly he was a dissapointment as well ... how do you possibly then claim that the great failing of the Supreme Court Justices is that they are "expected to rule based upon a political position", having just laid out the case that they don't live up to the expectations of the politicians who appointed them?!!!
As usual, you do get my fingers klacking(and that wasn't the half of it)... I'm out of time though, but I'll be back!
;-)
Well, it took awhile, but I'm baaack.
"For a country that claims to be a democracy I think it is a travesty that the highest court in the land is made up of life time presidential appointed positions."
Does it really need to be pointed out once again, that there is nothing in our constitution which claims that we are a democracy? Or that it has only been through the constant railing of progressives for the last 100+ years, that those who used to look as such claimants as if they were thick, have mostly died off or succumbed to public schooling and media, which do in deed blather on about our being a democracy. But we are not. Never have been. And with luck, never will be.
We are a constitutional representative republic, some of who's members are democratically elected. The electoral college still ensures that the President is not democratically elected by the populace... though yes, it has become so unknown, that an elector acting against their populace would cause a firestorm... that is a fire I'd like to see ignited. The Senate unfortunately, thanks to the 17th amendment, is now elected by the public, instead of their elected state leglislatures, making them every bit as reactionary as the House of Representatives, and with triple the term. IMHO, not a good thing, and in terms of just one its stated goals (campaign finance reform) an utter failure.
Any thoughts on that?
And of course the Justices of the Supreme Court - appointed, not voted for, or directly beholden to any politician - a very good thing. Now if we can just undo the corrosive horror unleashed by Uncle Teddy and babblin' joe bidden into the confirmation process (in Judge Borks nomination (who by the way, I did not and do not support, and am thankful he didn't get on the court, though not for the dems 'reasons')), we might get things back in balance.
Btw, what do you think of Souter's nominated replacement? Do you think 'empathy' has a key place in judicial reasoning?
"This is the problem with the Supreme Court it should not be made up of lifetime appointees who are then expected to rule based upon a political position as opposed to how the law reads."
One question I have, is how would shortening the Justices terms, presumably putting them into the term range of those sitting politicians who would then have a thumbs up/thumbs down vote over their continuance on the court, and which would no doubt be based on the political ramifications of their past and immediate future decisions - how could that possibly help to de-politicize the Supreme Court?
Might want to Article 2, Section 2, Clauses 2 and 3 , and/or Article 3, Section 1 to review the relevant portions and thinking behind, the SCOTUS.
(That looks snarky, I really don't mean it to be, I'm quite sincere, it is fascinating to read through some of the thoughts now and then, that were formative to the creation and early understanding of the constitution - I enjoy it anyway.)
Post a Comment