Regardless of term limits on Judicial appointments, the party in power will use every possible vehicle to attain the upper hand in the court system. So I believe we have to look at the method for appointment and approval of the SC and Federal Judges. As long as we leave those decisions to the party in power were not going to get beyond the politics of the day. Perhaps the Congressional committee selecting candidates for appointments should be equally divided between the two parties regardless of which party is in power. If a vote on a candidate is equally divided the committee must move on to another candidate or continue its discussion until there is a clear majority for the current candidate. A novel idea; try to get Congress to agree to it!

Expand full comment

I am cornfused by the the suggested reform which would disallow the Supreme Court from ruling on appellate cases which you contend comprise 99% of its docket.Isn't the Court supposed to be the tribunal of last resort rendering final decisions on many appeals received from lower courts?

In fact,didn't that become its raison d'etre after Marbury?A matter of further curiousity is what document or fixed precepts did colonial era judges refer to when engaged in judicial review in the pre-Revolutionary era?The Magna Carta,Petition of Rights,or simply long settled common law?

Expand full comment

The Citizens United case is a prime candidate for the SC case with the greatest potential to destroy democracy.

The case was a challenge to the McCain Feingold bill which limited "electioneering" immediately before primaries and general elections. The SC found that portion of that Act to be unconstitutional, so the organization, Citizens United, won its freedom to show its "documentary" hit job on Hillary whenever they wanted, although by then she had already lost the nomination to Obama.

With that decision the SC case should have been over, but Mr. Stare Decisis Chief Justice John Roberts ordered the litigants to come back and argue rights for corporations. They did that and the SC decided that corporations have all the same rights as human beings, something not contemplated even in nightmares of the Founders.

Net: The SC created a case and then a law that was not part of the lawsuit before the court. Blatant legislating from the bench.

That decision has given us massive money influx into and influence on our politicians, elections and our democracy, as the votes of big money people have more power than those of ordinary, not fabulously wealthy people. And that is destructive of democracy.

And that is why we don't have things like gun safety legislation, laws protecting against gerrymandering and more - you know, things that We The People want.

Expand full comment