There’s been a shift in recent decades in terms of how the media covers vacancies on the United States Supreme Court.
There’s a far greater concern about the ideological make-up of the Court. A great deal of time and attention is spent on whether a new appointee will change the balance between the nine justices.
The 2020 situation involving Ruth Bader Ginsburg brought much needed attention to the modern day impact of politics on the nomination process.
Ginsburg probably should have quit when Obama was still President. Instead she held out until the very end in the hope that President Trump would not be the one who’d appoint her successor.
The impact of politics is just as apparent with how Justice Breyer retired ahead of the 2022 midterm elections. A change of power in the Senate could have made it more difficult to confirm a Biden nominee. It’s even possible that Mitch McConnell would have found a way to hold up the process all the way to the 2024 election.
The trend toward political overtones is eroding the court’s traditional purpose as an interpreter of the law. It ignores the fact that cases about abortion, guns and other hot topics can vary based on each set of circumstances.
Instead everyone wants to know in advance how a justice will interpret Roe vs. Wade, the Second Amendment and a host of other items.
Something that surprises me greatly is how some news commentators express a need to go back to what the original framers of the Constitution intended. It makes me wonder if those commentators actually believe what they’re saying, or if they’re just willing to go with any propaganda that will appeal to their followers.
What the framers intended in the 1780s is irrelevant in 2022. It’s simply irrelevant.
They lived in a time period when slaves were placed on the auction block and when only property owners could vote. Who knows what went through their minds? It’s safe to say that it’s not the same thing that should go through modern minds.
The one intention of the framers that still matters is their biggest intention of all. They wanted a Constitution that could become a living document, one that would withstand political whims.
For that reason they wanted a judicial branch headed by justices who would be appointed for life. It was hoped that they could freely utilize their legal expertise to make sure that new laws did not conflict with constitutional standards.
These days almost everyone has opinions about constitutional law. Some consider themselves well informed when they truly aren’t.
A question we face in 2022 is whether some type of corrective action is needed to address the influence of politics on the court, to counteract the “conventional wisdom” that leads to narrow views of how justices should do their jobs.
Would it help to have a term limit? Instead of being on the Court for life or until the onset of senility, it could become a standard that an appointment should involve an 18-year commitment.
It would mean that every two years a new judge would be appointed. The court would gradually turn over in an 18-year cycle. Every presidential administration would have an equal opportunity to appoint new members.
It’s not a perfect plan. Vacancies could occur because of health issues. Even if the 18-year rotation stayed mostly consistent, it would be the luck of the draw in terms of which President would replace each judge.
Still it would be a new standard under which the power of Presidents and Senators would be mitigated. It would become very difficult for one party to ever truly “stack the court”.
It would make sense to have a special committee to study a term limit option. Preserving the integrity of the Supreme Court is essential for preserving the value of the Constitution.
— Jim Muchlinski is a longtime reporter and contributor to the Marshall Independent
