Quote:
Originally Posted by dark_crystal
I wholeheartedly agree. It is short-sighted in the extreme to even suggest it. If we add justices every time there is a power shift, aren't we going to end up with like 37 justices eventually?
It just sets a terrible precedent. If anyone is going to try to pull something like this, let it be the GOP and we will take the high road against it.
|
Yes, it is a terrible precedent.
I'm also uncomfortable with packing the court with justices who will allow or disallow laws according to the views of the party who appointed them instead of according to the constitution. I get that interpreting the constitution allows for a bit of manipulating/maneuvering just like interpreting the law in general does. But I think a judge needs to start the interpreting from a place of integrity, openness and honesty. There needs to be a willingness to be impartial and uphold the spirit of the constitution even while understanding that it was a different time so things change, meaning becomes obscured or irrelevant, allowing for dispassionate review and interpretation.
Of course justices are human beings and human beings have prejudices and personal belief systems but one is not on the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution according to one's beliefs. Once that becomes the norm we may as well remove constitutional review from the job description. Again I know it happens, it can't be helped. justices can't remove their beliefs from their motivations. But when it is not only accepted as a given, but is the exact reason the particular person is chosen to be a Supreme Court justice then I question the validity of the rulings the Court makes. Even the idea that the American people choose a president and through that choice should expect the Supreme Court justices appointed by that president to allow or disallow laws according to the views of the party that controlled the presidency and the senate at that time and not according to constitutional review is to my mind bizarre. A judge at least should give lip service to being impartial. Judges should judge with impartiality. I know democrats are expected to appoint liberal justices and republicans conservative ones. I get that. But lately this seems to be a bit more than that, extra as the kids say. I am probably being naïve here but I don't believe there was always this deep intractable split with Supreme Court justices. I mean I know justices always leaned to the right or the left, but this is ridiculous.