Can The Supreme Court Be Fixed?

fairness-g97d3c2274_640

The U.S. Supreme Court is a failed institution. According to Alternet.org*, it is …

A nakedly partisan majority installed by a losing presidential candidate in the Oval Office simply because he could, using only its authority, and not the law, as justification.

A captured body serving a powerful, very small political minority (the very rich, the pathologically “moral”) to the exclusion of the whole of the rest of the country and its needs.

Over the years, suggestions have been bandied about to increase the number of Supreme Court judges as a solution to the partisanship (most recently evidenced in the Roe vs. Wade debacle). However, past efforts to this end have not been successful. Further, it has been noted that doing so could “unleash a spiral of retaliatory moves by whichever party is in power.”

Nevertheless, the idea has once again surfaced. Most recently the talk centers around increasing the number of judges by four. If done under the current administration, this would obviously give the Dems a majority (7-6), but who’s to say that down the road the same imbalance wouldn’t happen again? If vacancies continue to be filled by the POTUS in power, it’s inevitable the tide will shift.

Several other ideas have been put forth in the referenced article, but IMO, each one tends to have its drawbacks.  Except one. It’s referred to as a Supreme Court lottery:

All federal appellate court judges, roughly 180 in total, would become associate justices on the Supreme Court. Panels of nine justices would be randomly selected from this pool. Importantly, decisions on whether to grant certiorari on a given case would be made by panel members who would not know the ideological makeup of the panel that would hear the case. Thus, this plan would frustrate partisan maneuvering.

IMO, the key words in this proposal are “randomly selected” and “frustrate partisan maneuvering.” In other words, as the article notes, this approach would tip the scales of justice toward justice and away from partisan manipulation.

There is little doubt that the makeup of the Supreme Court needs to be reworked. While Democrats are extremely unhappy with the current slate, there have been times in the past when the opposite was true.

Bottom line: Discussion concerning the structure of the U.S. Supreme Court needs to be moved to the active agenda (including, IMO, changes in the age limit).

What do you think? Is the above a workable solution? Do you have other ideas? Is a change even possible in the current political climate?

*(Full Disclosure: Alternet.org is described by MediaBiasFactCheck.com as Left Bias.)
*********************************************
Image by Venita Oberholster from Pixabay

This Is What They See

Excerpts from a letter in our local newspaper.

The writer starts out by saying that although he was not originally a Trump fan, he simply couldn’t support Hillary because of, well, all those BAD things she’s noted for. (He actually wanted Cruz.) However, as you will see from the following excerpts, he’s now a solid supporter.

First, he points out that “Congress has wasted 2 1/2 years to try to dump Trump because of so-called collusion with Russia, when the Democrats actually worked with Russia to get that info in the first place.”

(Note: I don’t think he understands the big picture.)

He continues by saying what a “waste of valuable time” it’s been in the attempts to “dump Trump” when we could have used the time to … “rebuild infrastructure to close the border with Mexico and stop the drugs.”

He continues …

What angers me most is that Democrats thought Trump was more important to dump than fixing roads and airports, stopping illegals flooding into America, ending drugs killing our younger population and the murdering of our newborns.

(Note: I wonder if he realizes that “fixing roads and airports” is part of the “infrastructure” that was supposed to be discussed at a recent meeting between the Democrats and Trump … that ended rather abruptly.)

Then he scolds the Democrats! “Shame on all of you that are still in that Democratic camp” … and tells them to “Stop hiding behind that donkey.”

And finally, the coup de grace:

Trump has decreased the tax rates, increased jobs, increased trade, appointed great men as Supreme Court judges and hundreds of district judges, eliminated federal regulations, fought MS-13 gangs, destroyed 95% of ISIS, reduced the killing of our policemen, backed up our military and 200 other important items.

He has kept his word in every aspect except where Democrats have blocked it in the House. Wake up people. You are destroying all we have built upon the last 200 years.

(Note: The Democrats have only been in control of the house for less than six months.)

I actually liked his phrase, “Wake up people.” In fact, I couldn’t agree more because it’s pretty apparent he and others like him really need to wash the sleep out of their eyes.

*******************
This letter clearly demonstrates the views of approximately 40-45% of the U.S. population. Less than half. Yet that group of people have dug their heels into the ground and refuse to see their “leader” for what he truly is — a man who is simply incapable of effectively running a country. Few are aware that many of his “accomplishments” are nothing more than the termination of actions made by someone else. Rarely has he offered anything to replace them or set up new and better options (e.g., Affordable Care Act).

Further, they look the other way at the MANY harmful actions of Trump as regards our relationship with other countries. They’ve become so enraptured with MAGA that they refuse to accept the importance of cooperative interactions.

And of course, since most of them refuse to accept climate change, they’re blind to Trump’s fateful decisions related to the environment.


©Time Magazine

I can’t help but wonder if they will like it if/when he puts on the robe and crown that he is so ardently seeking.