{"id":7748,"date":"2018-09-19T07:35:02","date_gmt":"2018-09-19T11:35:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.trinitydc.edu\/president\/?p=7748"},"modified":"2018-09-19T07:36:38","modified_gmt":"2018-09-19T11:36:38","slug":"constitution-day-continues-thoughts-on-the-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.trinitydc.edu\/president\/2018\/09\/constitution-day-continues-thoughts-on-the-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Constitution Day Continues: Thoughts on the Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>(Supreme Court of the United States, Question mark indicates place vacated by retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy)<\/p>\n

Constitution Day in 2018 has occurred at the height of one of the most contentious episodes in the history of nominations to the United States Supreme Court.\u00a0 Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement late in the summer.\u00a0 Article II Section 2 of the United States Constitution says that the President has the power to appoint judges of the Supreme Court “with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.”\u00a0 Accordingly, President Donald Trump nominated U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace him.\u00a0 The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings, with Democrats accusing the Republican majority of failing to allow enough time for the process.\u00a0 Shortly before the committee was to vote on the nomination, a complainant came forward accusing Judge Kavanaugh of sexual assault while in high school, a charge that Judge Kavanaugh denies.\u00a0 As of this writing, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, the woman alleging sexual assault, will testify before the Judiciary Committee next Monday, as will Judge Kavanaugh.<\/p>\n

Supreme Court appointments have always evoked partisan contentiousness because justices serve for a lifetime.\u00a0 While judges are supposed to be impartial, in fact, the nominees always have a distinctive political bent depending on the party in power.\u00a0 Once on the high court bench, only death or retirement can end their term.\u00a0 There are only nine justices, and their ideological spread is considerable.\u00a0 Justices can and do moderate their viewpoints over time, so sometimes a conservative justice participates in a progressive ruling, and sometimes liberals surprise their fans with a conservative opinion.\u00a0 But, on the whole, the viewpoints tend to become somewhat predictable since the opinions of justices are studied intensely.<\/p>\n

The current Supreme Court has four generally predictable conservatives:\u00a0 Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito and the newest Justice Neal Gorsuch.\u00a0 Four generally predictable liberal members include Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Justice David Souter.\u00a0 Because of this balance, the replacement for Justice Kennedy, who was a conservative-to-moderate vote, and sometimes even a “swing” vote to a more liberal view, is seen as an important pivot to maintain balance on the Court.<\/p>\n

I’ll post another blog in a few days commenting on the extraordinary circumstances of the current nomination.\u00a0 For now, that bit of background above sets-up this question posed to the Trinity community on the Constitution Day Straw Poll:<\/p>\n

Question #4:\u00a0 Do you agree or disagree with lifetime appointments of Supreme Court justices?
\n<\/strong><\/h2>\n


\nCAS Students commented:<\/span><\/p>\n

“I would suggest that lifetime appointments of any leaders-political or judicial-is a borderline
\ndictatorial attribute of our society. If citizens are in favor of monopolizing the individuals who uphold
\nthe law, Then they would vote as such. I am in favor of evolution. Traditionally unchanging the
\nindividuals that weigh in heavily on the nature of how Americans should treat one another or
\nbehave with one another is quite scary. Mandating that these individuals are guaranteed a seat in
\nthe Supreme Court will almost protect them when their adherence to law waivers.”<\/p>\n

“I don’t agree with the lifetime appointment of judges because it’s a stressful job that occupies a lot
\nof time. Other than that and my personal biggest concern with lifetime judges is the fact that
\nsociety changes, and having judges that are older doesn’t help younger generations because
\nusually older people grew up with a certain life style and they won’t understand younger
\ngenerations problems, such as then idea of student loans. Supreme court judges that are on court
\nnow may not understand how much college and its price has changed so they don’t think student
\nloans are as important as college students know they are.”<\/p>\n

“I agree with the lifetime appointments of Supreme Court justices. If for any reason, the Justice is
\nbehaving unprofessionally, they can be impeached. I do not suggest any changes.”<\/p>\n

Professional Students commented:<\/span><\/p>\n

“I agree with lifetime appointments.”<\/p>\n

“No one should have a guaranteed lifetime job. This is very dangerous. People become complacent
\nknowing they can’t get fired no matter what they do. Mindsets can change over the years. People
\nbecome older and their minds are not as active. They need to go through a process every 4 years
\njust like the President.”<\/p>\n

“I do not agree with the lifetime appointments of the Supreme Court. There are so many people
\nwho have different views that others. Those that are appointed will\/could still have the views of
\nwhen they first became part of the Supreme Court. I believe that a fresh pair of eyes every few
\nyears will be beneficial, the same way we can get a new President every 4 years. This gives those
\nthat have lived and seen what happens day-to-day, the opportunity to be heard.”<\/p>\n

“I would consider the need for a lifetime appointment. Does it serve as an extreme checks and
\nbalance system, are they there for the purpose of continuety, does it protect them from political
\ninfluence? I don\u2019t think so. Perhaps a 12 year term equivalent to 3 presidential terms would be
\nideal and effective.”<\/p>\n

“I do not agree that Supreme Court justices should be given a lifetime appointment. I base this in the
\nreasoning that as we get older our cognitive functioning decreases greatly and our ability to make
\nthoughtful and reasonable decisions are hampered. Another reason to not have life-time
\nappointees is because societies change, beliefs change and public opinion changes. Someone
\nappointed to the Supreme Court in 2018 will surely not be in conjunction with the beliefs of the
\nAmerican people 40 years later, in many situations. I believe a life-time is too long to be given a
\nposition, and that 20 years should be the maximum amount allotted to any appointee. There should
\nalso be an age limit of 75 years old before passing the torch to the next justice. One should not be
\nable to just sit on the Supreme Court seat because they’re waiting for the next appointee to come
\nup who aligns with their agenda.”<\/p>\n

“No, I do not agree with the lifetime appointments of the Supreme Court justices. Why should be
\npeople have to wait until a judge die before being appointed to work. I would suggest that a judge
\nshould work depending on his\/her age the maximum of 30 years before retiring.”<\/p>\n

Faculty and Staff commented:<\/span><\/p>\n

“A lifetime appointment is far to much! A term of 20 years is more than fair and it gives more than
\nenough time for consistency in terms of the interpretation of the law.”<\/p>\n

“I tend to disagree with lifetime appointments because if a justice is in failing health, especially
\nmental or emotional health, and refuses to step down, the judicial process is tainted. Also, a
\nperson who was once appointed as a justice based on his or her background, character, political
\nposition, and other factors may subtly or suddenly change completely from the individual who was
\nappointed. There should be a way for the other justices or an independent counsel to address
\nthese possibilities and initiate proceedings to remove such a justice in the interest of the citizens
\nand the country as a whole.”<\/p>\n

“I agree with the lifetime appointment. However, the process by which appointment and the timing
\nhas been too politicized.”<\/p>\n

“We were always taught that life-time appointment ensures the independence of the Supreme
\nCourt. I still believe in this. Justices tend to become more moderate the longer they are on the
\ncourt. If they had shorter terms, I feel like the appointment process would be even more politicized
\nand justices would be more conscious of political issues in their decisions.”<\/p>\n

“In general, lifetime appointments have served us well. I don’t see this as a big deal. In the modern
\nera, justices seldom die in office; they tend to resign when they feel they have nothing more to
\noffer. Of course, as people live much longer now than they used to in the late 1700s, it might be
\nworth considering fixed terms for justices. Those terms would need to be long (at least 20 years),
\nhowever, to provide the court with the kind of independence from Presidential or Congressional
\nmeddling that it now enjoys.”<\/p>\n

“Lifetime appointments to a body that comprises a full third of our government should be taken
\nalmost as seriously as constitutional amendments. A two-thirds majority in both houses should be
\nrequired to confirm a Supreme Court Justice.”<\/p>\n

“Lifetime appointments are intended to provide the court with maximum protection from political
\ninterference. I don\u2019t LIKE lifetime appointments, but I\u2019d give them up only if an equally strong
\nmechanism to protect the independence of the court could be found. I have no idea what to do
\nabout the appointment process, which has degenerated into a circus sideshow.”<\/p>\n

“Appointment process should not be dictated by politicians (e.g., Presidential selection, Senate
\nconfirmation hearings). Appointment process should be done by a non-partisan, non-political
\nentity. For instance, justices should be appointed based on geographic region or demographics so
\nthat they represent the American population overall. Lifetime appointments seem ok; would be
\nbetter if it were generational appointments (e.g., within median American age limits).”<\/p>\n

“I agree with lifetime appointments but Obama should have been able to make an appointment –
\nhate the way the Congress has handled this issue…”<\/p>\n

“I do agree that U.S. Supreme Court Justices should have lifetime appointments. This alleviates
\npolitical pressure (they don’t worry about how their rulings will affect their careers after they leave
\nthe court). However, the process of appointment is too political. One political party should not be
\nable to completely prevent a nomination hearing (as was done with Garland), and nominees
\nshould be able to be fairly and thoroughly questioned to determine their commitment to the law
\nand Constitution vs. their commitment to a particular political party\/ideology.”<\/p>\n

“I agree with Emily Bazelon, legal scholar and New York Times writer, who advocates for a single
\n27 year term for justices. Long-term appointments definitely help keep the role of justice from being
\npoliticized. Without that we would not have had justices like O’Connor or Kennedy who riled their
\nown parties with some of their decisions. The courts should be free of politics. That said, courts
\nget stacked by lucky presidents. We need to make sure that the court stays balanced by assuring
\nit gets refreshed more often.”<\/p>\n

“The idea, as I understand it, was to prevent other influences on justice if the rulings made could
\nnot influenced by the idea that “right” equals longer tenure. I agree that appointments should be
\nlifetime.”<\/p>\n

Question #5:\u00a0 Other Thoughts on the Constitution:\u00a0 Should it Change?<\/h2><\/span>\n

Some responses to the final question:<\/p>\n

A CAS student says:<\/span>\u00a0 “No. The Constitution is set in stone.”<\/p>\n

A Professional Student says:<\/span>\u00a0 “The constitution should be changed to indicate that a sitting President can be charged, indicted and sent to prison. No one is above the law.”<\/p>\n

Faculty and Staff commented:<\/span><\/p>\n

“Yes. Up to 2016, I had been a vocal defender of the Electoral College as a safeguard against
\nreally disastrous outcomes. In 2016 the Electoral College failed us; it failed to prevent the election
\nof precisely the kind of person it was designed to guard against–a charlatan who may well be a
\ntraitor. The Electoral College should be abolished. We should look into other methods of direct
\nelection of the President, perhaps through a runoff or ranking system, so that we don’t end up with
\na proliferation of candidates and minor parties.”<\/p>\n

“Our nation has been polarized by two political parties that are now virtually private industries unto
\nthemselves. The Constitution should be amended to take the money out of politics and make
\nelectioneering less profitable (and therefore corruptible).”<\/p>\n

“Full and complete equality for women in all spheres of life. Guarantee the right to vote for all
\ncitizens of legal age, including the incarcerated. Publicly-funded elections with a ban on private
\nmoney in politics.”<\/p>\n

“Issues in our society regarding rights have the ability to be worked out through the political
\nprocess, within the legislative and judiciary arms of government. However, this requires that we
\nhave people of integrity and ability filling those roles. This can happen if citizens are committed to
\nthat ideal, invest the time and energy to educate themselves about issues and candidates, and
\nthen make the time and effort to vote and participate in the national conversation.”<\/p>\n

“Our founders were pretty wise, but I do believe that ultimately, a more just democratic system is
\nthe parliamentary democracy. Presidential democracies place too much power into the hands of
\none person. Presidents also get to make appointments of un-elected officials that we now learn
\nstage tiny coups in the Oval every day by removing letters from the President’s desk, intentionally
\nmisleading and misguiding our duly elected president. They feel the NEED to do this because that
\nposition has just become too powerful, and as a consequence, too dangerous. While a parliament
\nstill has a leader, the power that leader has is less consolidated, and the rest of the duly elected
\nlegislature has more say in the execution of governance, as opposed to our current conundrum
\nwhere un-elected appointees are making these moves. In addition, the Electoral College was a
\nsolution for a bygone era and is certainly no longer needed. I see it as a wholely undemocratic
\nidea, and it should be abolished. Finally, weak campaign finance laws have allowed America to
\nreplace monarchies and nobility with oligarchies. The Vanderbilts, the Carnegies, the Rockefellers,
\nthe Astors, the Waltons, the Mercers, the Kochs, the Musks. How are these insanely rich
\noligarchs, wielding their wealth as weapons against democracy, in any way different from what we
\nwere trying to escape in the Old World? There are a few very rich people that decided this past
\npresidential election, and that must never happen again.”<\/p>\n

“Let’s have a closer look at the 25th amendment.”<\/p>\n

And these comments:<\/span><\/p>\n

“Thanks for waking my brain to our constitution in this way….”<\/p>\n

“…this survey peaked my interest in the constitution to study it.”<\/p>\n

That’s the whole point of Constitution Day!\u00a0 Thanks for your participation!<\/p>\n

What is your opinion?\u00a0 Join the discussion by adding your comments in the box below….<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Members of the Trinity community have a LOT to say about lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court! <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":51,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[509,14,6,787,20],"tags":[2053,2042,125,127,1681,1734,436],"class_list":["post-7748","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-civil-human-rights","category-education","category-media","category-political-issues","category-politics","tag-anthony-kennedy","tag-brett-kavanaugh","tag-congress","tag-constitution-day","tag-donald-j-trump","tag-president-trump","tag-supreme-court"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.trinitydc.edu\/president\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7748","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.trinitydc.edu\/president\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.trinitydc.edu\/president\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.trinitydc.edu\/president\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/51"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.trinitydc.edu\/president\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7748"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.trinitydc.edu\/president\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7748\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.trinitydc.edu\/president\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7748"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.trinitydc.edu\/president\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7748"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.trinitydc.edu\/president\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7748"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}