SCOTUS Reform

June 21, 2023 by ROBERT A. LEVINE

The corrupt activities of Justices Thomas and Alito, for which there were no repercussions by SCOTUS, once again brings the need for reform of the Supreme Court, indeed of the whole court system, to the fore again. Lifetime appointments must be abolished in favor of set terms which can be renewable if the president and the Senate agree. When Article III of the Constitution was written bestowing lifetime tenures of Court appointees, life expectancies were much lower, and it was not anticipated that some justices would remain on the Court 20 or 30 years, or even longer. Clarence Thomas was appointed by President George H.W Bush in 1991 and has been serving for 32 years. Article III also states that the justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.” Yet Justices Thomas and Alito have not been removed from their offices despite corrupt actions. This is because they are political appointees and not unbiased in their judicial rulings. They cannot be impeached as they have the support of Republicans in Congress despite being beholden to outside individuals for “gifts” they received which actually can be seen as bribes.

Though a Constitutional Amendment would be necessary to change the manner of appointment, a fair justice system demands that it be done. Though the Democrats won the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 presidential elections, 6 of the 9 Supreme Court justices have been appointed by Republican presidents and are definite conservatives. Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans held up the appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in 2016, ostensibly because it was Obama’s last year in office and they wanted to wait for the election. Then the Republican Senate appointed Amy Comey Barrett to the Court in the last months of Trump’s presidency, seeing no hypocrisy in what they had done. Trump in one term in office appointed 3 justices. Obama in 2 terms as president only appointed 2 justices.

There are several ways appointments to the Supreme Court could be reformed. One would be to limit the years a justice could serve to 9 years, 15 years or 18 years. This would guarantee more turnover in the Supreme Court as well as the lower federal courts. Another mechanism would be to allow every president to appoint 2 justices to the Supreme Court with the 2 longest serving justices retiring. Since the Constitution provides no set number of justices on the Court, expansion of the Court to 11 or 13 justices should also be considered. This would not be a political move but would reflect the increased workload of the justices as our nation has grown tremendously since the Constitution was written and the number of justices on the Court has varied in the past.

A fairer justice system is needed. Whether the Democrats and Republican politicians can agree on the changes that are necessary in another matter,

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Buy The Uninformed Voter on Amazon and Barnes and Noble

 

Suppression of Direct Democracy

Suppression of Direct Democracy

            Robert A. Levine        

Politicians don’t like being told what to do. This is particularly true if the direction comes from their constituents. They believe that once they are elected to office, they control the agenda of their constituents and are free to make the laws, even if they conflict with the wishes of the people. This is particularly true of the elected officials of gerrymandered state legislatures who do not want the overturning of laws they have written by the people of their states. It is as if they know better than the voters what is good for them and the state and are unwilling to allow the voters to challenge the laws they have passed.

This mindset exists particularly in gerrymandered state legislatures controlled by Republicans who have tried to make it more difficult for referenda or initiatives passed by the people to reverse laws that the legislators have passed. In fact, they have been surprised at times to see that the majority of voters have been opposed to pieces of legislation that they have made law. Abortion is one issue that many legislators are in conflict over with their constituents. GOP state legislatures also want to neutralize voters who favor raising minimum wages in their states and who want to eliminate gerrymandering.

Originally, referenda or voter initiatives could be passed by a majority of the people voting. Now, however, a number of state legislatures have been trying or have increased the percentage of people in favor of an issue necessary for it to pass from 50 percent to 60 or even 67 percent. They are afraid that just having a majority in favor of an issue will allow reversal of laws they have passed. Undoubtedly, the legislature’s raising of the percentage for passing an initiative will be challenged in the courts, but the outcome of this is uncertain.

Gerrymandered state legislatures have also been making it harder for people to vote, hoping that those who support them will be more avid in going to the polls.  Voter IDs may be disallowed for minor discrepancies, polling places and hours may be limited, drop off boxes limited and placed in inconvenient locations and so forth. Also, referenda may be held separately from elections so that there will be lower voter turnout.

Even in red states such as Kansas, general support for abortion rights surprised Republicans and they do not wish to see restrictive abortion laws changed in their states. Even though the legislators are catering to a minority of voters, these are usually very avid in their ideology, often driven by religious beliefs. The legislators do not wish to chance losing the support of this base, even if the majority favors a different path.

Direct voting on an issue is the essence of democracy and a majority of voters should be able to determine how to handle issues. This is not to say that the majority may sometimes be wrong, as was shown in Proposition 13 in California when it came to a consideration such as freezing property tax rates.  Though the majority is not always right, neither are the legislators and when there is a conflict, the people should rule. However, some of our Founding Fathers may not have agreed with this assessment.

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Buy The Uninformed Voter on Amazon and Barnes and Noble

Suppression of Direct Democracy

Suppression of Direct Democracy

            Robert A. Levine        

Politicians don’t like being told what to do. This is particularly true if the direction comes from their constituents. They believe that once they are elected to office, they control the agenda of their constituents and are free to make the laws, even if they conflict with the wishes of the people. This is particularly true of the elected officials of gerrymandered state legislatures who do not want the overturning of laws they have written by the people of their states. It is as if they know better than the voters what is good for them and the state and are unwilling to allow the voters to challenge the laws they have passed.

This mindset exists particularly in gerrymandered state legislatures controlled by Republicans who have tried to make it more difficult for referenda or initiatives passed by the people to reverse laws that the legislators have passed. In fact, they have been surprised at times to see that the majority of voters have been opposed to pieces of legislation that they have made law. Abortion is one issue that many legislators are in conflict over with their constituents. GOP state legislatures also want to neutralize voters who favor raising minimum wages in their states and who want to eliminate gerrymandering.

Originally, referenda or voter initiatives could be passed by a majority of the people voting. Now, however, a number of state legislatures have been trying or have increased the percentage of people in favor of an issue necessary for it to pass from 50 percent to 60 or even 67 percent. They are afraid that just having a majority in favor of an issue will allow reversal of laws they have passed. Undoubtedly, the legislature’s raising of the percentage for passing an initiative will be challenged in the courts, but the outcome of this is uncertain.

Gerrymandered state legislatures have also been making it harder for people to vote, hoping that those who support them will be more avid in going to the polls.  Voter IDs may be disallowed for minor discrepancies, polling places and hours may be limited, drop off boxes limited and placed in inconvenient locations and so forth. Also, referenda may be held separately from elections so that there will be lower voter turnout.

Even in red states such as Kansas, general support for abortion rights surprised Republicans and they do not wish to see restrictive abortion laws changed in their states. Even though the legislators are catering to a minority of voters, these are usually very avid in their ideology, often driven by religious beliefs. The legislators do not wish to chance losing the support of this base, even if the majority favors a different path.

Direct voting on an issue is the essence of democracy and a majority of voters should be able to determine how to handle issues. This is not to say that the majority may sometimes be wrong, as was shown in Proposition 13 in California when it came to a consideration such as freezing property tax rates.  Though the majority is not always right, neither are the legislators and when there is a conflict, the people should rule. However, some of our Founding Fathers may not have agreed with this assessment.

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Buy The Uninformed Voter on Amazon and Barnes and Noble