Posted on 09/02/2011 11:50:24 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
WASHINGTON Rick Perry, like other conservatives, has lots of complaints about the Supreme Court: The justices, he says, have meddled in social policy, stepped on state power and generally run amok.
One solution the governor embraces is to end lifetime tenure - a cornerstone of the Constitution, whose drafters worried far less about activist or senile judges than about meddling tyrants and political pressure.
The idea isn't original, and it's not limited to conservatives. Some scholars on the left have also embraced the idea as a correction for judges serving too long.
It began to percolate in the 1980s and '90s after a series of bruising Senate confirmation fights, although it's never gained much traction. A handful of bills and proposed constitutional amendments have been filed in Congress in recent years to little effect. But Perry's embrace of the idea, combined with his states' rights principles, may demonstrate how he would push as president to change the balance of power in the federal government.
Perry, in his anti-Washington book "Fed Up!," derides the high court as "nine oligarchs in robes" and writes: "We should take steps to restrict the unlimited power of the courts to rule over us with no accountability."
Perry devotes an entire chapter to his indictment of the judiciary. The proposal to eliminate life tenure is barely a footnote, but that's enough to inspire sharp passions.
"Most lawyers would be against this," said Laurel Bellows, president-elect of the American Bar Association. "If you are a strict constructionalist - which apparently the governor isn't because he's looking to amend the Constitution - you would have respect for the wisdom of the Framers."
Perry's stance is remarkable in the sense that presidents have long viewed the power to shape the judiciary as one of the prizes that comes with winning the White House.
That's why the stakes are so high and the fights so fierce when a rare Supreme Court vacancy arises. It's a key reason President George W. Bush picked a 50-year-old conservative, John Roberts, as chief justice, planting seeds of a legacy that could persist for decades longer than his own presidency. And it's unclear if more frequent confirmation fights would insulate the judiciary or make it even more politicized.
At Alliance for Justice, a liberal advocacy group, president Nan Aron noted that five of nine current justices were appointed by Republicans.
Railing against the judiciary is an effective way for Perry to attract conservative voters, she said, but "I don't know that he's fully thought that through. ... He would want his judges to serve for life."
Paul Carrington, a Duke University law professor and former dean who has led the effort to impose term limits, agreed that the current system breeds arrogance.
He called it "nuts" to let octogenarians run the country. "It's ridiculous to have a person sitting in a position of that much power for 30 or 40 years," he said.
What an idiotic proposal. Ranks right up there with his views on protecting illegals and backing Al Gore.
KAGAN AND SOTOMAYOR, DIDN’T THEY HAVE THE ENTHUSIASTIC BACKING OF ORRIN G. Hatch?
All RINOs and most Republicans backed them.
The founders NEVER intended that the SC would be the sole arbiters of what is, or is not, constitutional! In fact, the envisioned that court as being a rather academic endeavor!
ABSOLUTELY TRUE!
Great post!
Already have it! It's not been used in a while but it's there!
http://www.robertwelchuniversity.org/Lectures/RWU_Curb_the_Courts.pdf
AMEN!
The states, through their members of the senate were intended to be arbiters of the Constitution as well!
CW, I can’t see anyone who supports Rick Perry being a huge Thomas fan. Rick Perry is the biggest eminent domain abuser since Theodore Roosevelt, and Clarence Thomas is the only one on the SCOTUS who stood up for an originalist view of the “public purpose” test. Seriously, you agree with Clarence Thomas? The justice who said that states have the right to legalize drugs and police can’t use thermal imaging on people’s homes to catch drug dealers? I simply don’t buy it.
Absolutely right. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with amending the Constitution by its own provisions. Thank God they thought to put in that provision to deal with unforeseen problems like activist justices.
Thank you for that information. One has to wonder why Congress is content to let the Court appropriate so much power for itself?
You are more than welcome!
I have been wonder about that myself. My rep has said that the problem has been that although we have had Republican majorities recently we have NEVER had conservative majorities and, upon reflection, I see that is true.
Conservatives need to use proper language when talking about the court. We're not waiting for the court to determine whether Obamacare is constitutional, or "make" it unconstitutional. We're waiting for it to recognize that it is unconstitutional and was from the moment of inception. The Court has no authority to grant legitimacy to unconstitutional legislation. Since the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, any Court action which is contrary to the Constitution is illegitimate.
That's exactly why the Congress has the power of impeachment; and YES they can get rid of Supreme Court Justices.
In fact, it's entirely possible that if a Justice were to commit a felony in some State that state could demand his removal under the "good behavior" constraint to their lifetime tenure.
>I agree with you in spirit, but let’s be frank. The bar ain’t all that high these days. It began with a blue dress and only went downhill.
>Well, one could argue it began with “I am not a crook.”
I would argue with Wicard v. Filburn. {Though perhaps earlier...}
Actually in order to be a strict Constitutionalist you must believe that the Constitution may be amended, for in the unamended Constitution itself it lays forth the process for amending itself.
>Imagine if after passing ObamaCare Congress then passed a joint resolution restricting the Supreme Court from ruling on its constitutionality?
Such a resolution would be contrary to the Constitution, and therefore null and void.
But that cuts both ways, the Judiciary does *NOT* have the power to amend or otherwise alter the Constitution, and on that basis alone they should have been run out of the country for Roe v. Wade.
>If you follow that line of logic then the Constitution would never be amended, even though the Founding Fathers provided us with 2 methods of having the Constitution amended.
3 — You’re forgetting the Declaration of Independence.
It took me a moment or two before I understood what you were referring to, but I must admit you are correct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.