ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> TalkLeft

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Legal Commentary

: TalkLeft

Bemoaning The "Activist" Court

By Big Tent Democrat

ADVERTISEMENTS

Ross Douthat, in classic Claude Rains style, is "shocked, shocked" to discover the Supreme Court is an active part of the political process. Why it took Douthat this long to discover that the current conservative Court is just as political and activist as, well, all the others, is beyond me. But his "prescriptions" for the problem seem less than well thought out:

There are bipartisan ways that the Court could be reined in, and the legislative branch reinvigorated. Shugerman, Caminker and others have proposed a supermajority rule, for instance, requiring a 6-to-3 vote to overturn federal legislation. . . . Absent such constraints, the best reform would be term limits for the Justices, instead of lifetime tenure. Give them 12 years, rotated on a regular schedule, and then send them on their way.

So Douthat thinks a 6-3 decision would be less "activist" than a 5-4 decision? Why for heavens sake? (For Douthat's information, Roe was decided by a 7-2 vote. Most of the Warren Court decisions conservatives like Douthat hate had at least 7 votes.) And how term limits would help in Douthat's project is beyond me. Why would a term limited Justice be any less likely to be "activist" than a life tenured one? More . .

Douthat's proposals are senseless. They also presumably require constitutional amendments. I stick to my long held view - let's stop pretending that the Supreme Court is not a political institution and insist that specific answers be provided by the President's judicial nominees to the questions the Senate wants answers to. Reinvigorating in a real way the Senate's advise and consent role (something conservatives like Douthat vehemently argued against during Republican Presidencies) is what is required. That is the way to make the Supreme Court responsive to the People - by making them respond to the questions of the People's representatives in the judicial naming process.

This requires nothing more than actually following the Constitution - having the Senate actually advise and consent on judicial nominees. But conservatives like Douthat have railed against this forever. Maybe now is the time for them to rethink their senseless views on this.

Speaking for me only


Full post as published by TalkLeft on June 02, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0021 secs (from cache 11/03/26 06:18:24)