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.
I agree. It’s beyond stupid, and makes the Supreme Court even more subject to politics.
Repeal the 17th!!!!!!
Or maybe even his ‘Checkers Speech’.
“I do. its a stupid idea.”
So are lifetime terms. Not that I advocate a change, but if they’re not going to stay above the fray, perhaps we shouldn’t treat them like they’re above the fray. The one true oligarchy of the federal government ought to justify its own existence every once in a while.
“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.”
This doesn’t follow. By that reasoning we wouldn’t have ended slavery by amending the constitution (something I’m sure strict constructionists wholeheartedly agree with). You can be a strict constructionist but still think the constitution could be amended.
I think some of the higher court justices should have a system of a “vote of no confidence” where if 66% of the population voates agaisnt them they get thrown out.
Think of it as a judicial “veto”.
I'd like to think we could tweak what "good behaviour" might mean. The constitution seems to be leaving an opening for the impeachment of Supreme Court Judges:
Article III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
As I said in my last post-
(I believe) Perry brings these things up to have the discussion, to remind people that the power is in their hands, that it is “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” And to make any changes before it’s too late — as it is now, we’re at the “vote your money into my pocket” point now. We can only remain a Republic if the people who have power are moral, and care about the country.
That would be my fear.
“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.”
This is from the president of the ABA? Can she really not be aware that the Framers wrote Article V? Or is she just a dirty liar?
See Post #57.
“Every time someone tries to tinker with what is NOT supposed to be a living document there are always unintended consequences.”
It most certainly IS supposed to be living in the sense that it can be amended, which is what we’re talking about here.
I had to review.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkers_speech
I think Sarah has been given the opportunity to give a few “Checkers speeches” of her own.
Sometimes an attack can backfire as it did in the fund scandal in ‘52.
But I do hate the emotional appeals when they are hollow.
ding, ding, ding...we have a winner.
I'll take Perry over Romney and either one of those over Obama on any day. But, I'm really not sold on Perry and am getting frustrated with media anointed front-runners.
I'm not sure if the idea is good or not, but the process proposed is proper.
“Not logical.
Conservatives conserve the Constitution.
What other RINO changes does he want?”
This issue has apparently driven a lot of people off the deep end. Since when can’t a conservative amend the Constitution? Amendability is part of the essence of the Constitution. This particular issue is one thing, and so are general questions about how often it should be amended or how solemn and serious a process it is. But to say conservative = conserve = no amendments is just stupid.
And what does “logic” have to do with it? Since “conservative” is our label, we are “logically” compelled never to change anything? That’s insane.
The 435 members of Congress was set a hundred years ago when we had less than 100 million people. We have over three times that number now.
The Constitution specifies no more than 1:30,000. We are over 1:700,000 now. There should be around 5,000 Congressmen. Let San Francisco send a dozen freaks, and my rural FL panhandle county will send a single good ‘ol boy.
Every ten years the country goes nuts with reapportionment. Almost all plans end up in court where libs abuse the unconstitutional Voting Rights Act. This judicial nonsense could be largely avoided if there was a rep for every 30-40K citizens.
My two cents.
Make that 435 of the House. Oops.
Ditto.
I don’t like the idea of term limits for Justice, but I DO wish the Senators who pass them on so blithely would take their responsibility more seriously than just going along because it’s a president’s prerogative.
Th senatorsy are not voting for Homecoming King. These ARE lifetime appointments to positions that will affect all Americans’ lives for generations and in that sense, far more important than any president or senator or representative.
I read the article and would agree that the power of Congress to reign in the Supreme Court exists. However, I am not sure that I would want that power to be exercised. Imagine if after passing ObamaCare Congress then passed a joint resolution restricting the Supreme Court from ruling on its constitutionality?
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.