The impending reversal of Roe v. Wade will demolish the revered role of the Supreme Court as simply interpreting the Constitution. Citizens United, a classic example of creating a decision that insulates the dark money of the ruling class from public accountability and enables despotic interests to gain power, is held in contempt by many. The Court’s creation of qualified immunity for cops has whitewashed the killing of blacks by white police, sanctioned extraordinary governmental misconduct and violence against a racial minority and decimated respect for the rule of law, especially in black communities.
The confirmation hearing of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson proves not only that the selection process for one of the most important jobs in our democracy is in shambles, but in addition that the work of the Supreme Court is inherently political. As a result of the circus atmosphere in the Senate, the public knows what lawyers always have known: the politics of judges predict their decisions. Should they have lifetime appointments with the uncontrolled power to determine social policies that impact voters without being held accountable?
Today the Supreme Court addresses tasks that were never contemplated at the founding of this country. The Founders were white men who were members of the ruling class. They designed a system grounded in 18th century social values and technology. Their concept of equal rights in the Declaration of Independence was written for white Christians. It has never applied to all people and many segments of U.S. society still claim that equality dilutes their liberty to maintain their economic, social and political advantages.
The reality is that once five Supreme Court justices arrive at a decision, it gains the force of law, notwithstanding four dissents. Five votes set public policy and the Constitution does not limit the Court’s decision-making power. Indeed, the Supreme Court never has found itself confined by the terms of the Constitution. That has been true since Marshall wrote Marbury v. Madison, establishing the power of the Court to overrule acts of Congress. When Marshall emphatically wrote “the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” he was affirming the common law that when a Court has to choose between two rules to decide a case, the choice is a judicial one. That’s no longer the case. Today SCOTUS ranges far and wide on significant social and political issues without answering to the public who trusts it less and less.
For decades the Supreme Court has enjoyed higher esteem than the other branches of government, largely because it claims to be the voice of the Constitution, a revered document. The reverence that has crowned the Supreme Court with a halo has changed and the demise of Row v. Wade will accelerate calls for public accountability.
Making public policy is inherently political and Supreme Court Justices should be responsible to the electorate at the ballot box.
Twenty-three states elect their state supreme courts. Others employ a retention election in which voters are asked whether an incumbent judge should remain in office for another term. If more than fifty percent of voters decided that he or she should not be retained they are removed.
In California, when Supreme Court justices step down at the end of their 12-year terms, the Governor nominates replacements. Newly nominated justices appear on the ballot and must obtain voter approval to replace the justices stepping down at the end of a 12-year terms.
In both the direct and retention election system, voters are the final check of whether a state Supreme court judge is making decisions approved by the public.
Establishing a 12- or 20-year term to ensure turnover in the US Supreme Court and a national ballot review whether justices should be retained in office will invigorate a critical public institution and promote public policy decisions by the Supreme Court that are more likely to be supported by the public.
A national referendum on whether the justices voting to abolish Roe v. Wade should retain their office would be a very healthy reform.
Contact Our San Jose, CA Personal Injury Lawyers If You Need Help
Alexander Law Group, LLP attorneys are available to answer questions and share our knowledge of the law and the results of our research and experience. Our goal as personal injury lawyers is to make a difference for our clients. Every day we deal with a range of health and safety issues that most people do not encounter until after an injury occurs. As safety lawyers we are committed to providing our clients and the public with information for safer and healthier living. Call 888-777-1776 or contact us online to schedule a consultation to see how we can help you.