In a 288-page report as long and detailed as any Supreme Court ruling, a 34-member, bipartisan presidential commission couldn’t reach consensus on whether the nation’s highest judicial panel should grow from nine, where it’s been since 1869, to some larger number. It should’ve been easy, especially for a panel so large, to grasp: Of course having a president pack the court won’t solve any of its underlying problems.
To the contrary, letting the chief executive enlarge the bench that issues the final word on constitutional law and statutory interpretation would snap the final, frayed thread of credibility by which the court now hangs, forcing presidents of each party to retaliate with new lifetime appointments of their own.
Three decisions by presidents and Senate majority leaders have produced the court’s current six-to-three conservative supermajority, one likely to overrule Roe v. Wade and embrace an interpretation of the Second Amendment that nullifies gun safety laws.
It may pain Democrats to refuse to go deeper down the route of politicizing the court, but someone has to be the relative grownup if one of the nation’s most important institutions has any hope of surviving a dangerously divisive moment. Generous term limits for justices would help balance the court ideologically rather than incentivizing the appointment of young zealots and leaving so much to when a lifetime appointee happens to die. Don’t pack a court on the brink; find a way to bring it back.
— New York Daily News
"term" - Google News
December 27, 2021 at 12:22PM
https://ift.tt/3Jn27Jh
Editorial: Supreme Court term limits make sense - Boston Herald
"term" - Google News
https://ift.tt/35lXs52
https://ift.tt/2L1ho5r
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Editorial: Supreme Court term limits make sense - Boston Herald"
Post a Comment