Dems packing the Supreme Court?
Dear Editor,
Packing the Supreme Court?
Not so Fast!
Recently, the Democrats have threatened to “pack the Supreme Court”. I say not so fast! I do not want to see this republic torn apart by the creation of a “super legislative branch” of unelected lawyers that do not answer to “we the people” of this country.
“If anything would make the court look partisan, it would be that — one side saying, when we’re in power, we’re going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.”
— The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
“If the public sees justices as politicians in ‘robes’, it’s confidence in the courts and the rule of law itself, can only diminish, diminishing the court’s power, including the power to act as a ‘check’ on the other branches.”
— Justice Stephen Breyers (retired)
Useful Definitions:
Judicial activism — a legal term that refers to court rulings that are partially or fully based on the judges political or personal biases rather than existing laws. Judicial activism occurs when a judge allows his or her personal views to guide the decision when rendering a judgment on a case.
Judicial Restraint — the belief that a judge should limit the use of their power to strike down laws, or to declare them unconstitutional, unless there is a clear conflict with the Constitution.
Original Intent — the judge will examine the actual aim or purpose of the article or law intended by the Framers of the Constitution.
Packing the Court — a term coined by President FDR, which was a slang term for the “Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937”. He wanted to reform the number of Supreme Court justices to obtain a favorable ruling for his political agendas.
The Rule of Five: The late Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan told incoming clerks: “The most important Rule of Law was the Rule of Five. With a majority of five votes, the Courts can do anything.” in such cases, the conventions of American political life do not recognize any formal power to overrule a decision short of the adoption of a constitutional amendment or another court over ruling the decision.
How did the Framers of the Constitution treat the Federal courts?
∫ The Constitution elaborated neither the exact powers or prerogatives of the Supreme Court nor the organization of the judicial branch. It was left for Congress and the Justices of the Court through their decisions to develop the Federal Judiciary and the body of Federal law.
∫ The main task of the Supreme court is to decide cases that may differ from the U.S. Constitution. Once the Supreme Court makes the decision in a case, it can only be changed by a later Supreme court decision or by changing or amending the Constitution.
The Founders did have their reservations about how the Supreme Court was evolving:
Further, to quote Chef Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court Sharon Kennedy: “The Founders balanced the power of government between three separate but co-equal branches of government. Our duty and obligation as members of the third branch — the judiciary is to uphold the law, not rewrite it or legislate from the bench.
In Conclusion: The role assigned to judges in our system was to interpret the Constitution (original intent) and lesser laws. It was to protect the integrity of the Constitution, not to add or subtract from it- certainly not to rewrite it. For the Framers knew unless judges are bound by the text of the Constitution we will in fact, no longer have a government of laws, but of men and women who are judges.
And if that happens, the words of the documents that think govern us will just be a mask for the personal rule of a small elite.
Lucien Murzyn
St. Clairsville