“Liberal” Justices

The Argument For 18 Year Terms For Supreme Court Justices In The Future To Insure Constitutional Stability

The controversy over Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is a time to consider modifying the Judiciary Act of 1789, and end lifetime terms, and change to a maximum of 18 years on the Court for any future Supreme Court Justice.

It would insure in the future that we would have two Supreme Court appointments in any Presidential term, with the limit insuring turnover, rather than locking in a one sided Supreme Court, which can distort constitutional law and interpretation in a detrimental fashion.

Right now, in 2018, we have the danger of locking in a five member right wing Court that could last for 20-30 years, and the Court should, ideally, be a balanced Court, with some liberals, some moderates, and some conservatives, which normally was the way it was most of our history, but now seems a distant dream.

While there is an argument for longer terms, based on specific Justices being considered significant and admired by many, it still makes sense that we have a maximum of 18 years on the Court, and that way, the likelihood of having Justices at advanced ages, in the late 70s and early 80s, is much less likely to occur.

And one must realize that since most Justices come in modern times from the Circuit Courts, it means the average Justice would have a long judicial career, and if coming from an executive or legislative branch background, rare but has occurred in the past, that a Justice’s total career in public service will have been a long one.

Many Presidents Have Made Court Appointments In Last Year Of Term Or Presidency

The Republican Party is making the preposterous argument that a President, in his last year in office, should not be able to make an appointment to the Supreme Court, when history tells us otherwise.

Just because a President is finishing his time in office does not mean that he has no authority to do his job, which includes appointing judges and Justices!

And what about Presidents running for reelection, with the possibility that he might not be reelected?  Does that mean every President in the last year of any Presidential term should lose his powers to make appointments to the federal judiciary?

History tells us otherwise as witness the following:

George Washington 1796 –two appointments

Thomas Jefferson 1804–one appointment

Andrew Jackson 1836–two appointments, including Chief Justice Roger Taney, who remained on the Court for 28 years

Grover Cleveland 1888–two appointments, including Chief Justice Melville Fuller, who remained on the Court for 22 years

Benjamin Harrison 1892–one appointment

William Howard Taft 1912–one appointment

Woodrow Wilson 1916—two appointments, including the controversial, longest battle, to put Louis Brandeis on the Supreme Court

Herbert Hoover 1932–one appointment (Benjamin Cardozo)

Franklin D. Roosevelt 1940–one appointment  (Frank Murphy)

Ronald Reagan 1988–one appointment (Anthony Kennedy)

Additionally, Presidents have made appointments to the federal district and circuit courts when in the last year in office (Reagan 26 and 7; Clinton 37 and 9; Bush II 26 and 6; Obama 4 and 4).

And from 1947 to 2014, 416 District Court and 79 Circuit Court appointments have been made in Presidential election years.

So the Republican Party has no case for why Barack Obama should not be able to make an appointment, other than that they do not want a liberal replacing a conservative, and bringing the end of the 44 year conservative and Republican dominance on the Court.

But the answer to that is to stop being a crybaby and accept that your reign of dominance is coming to an end, and not too soon.

It is time to move into the 21st century of constitutional law, rather than dwell in the 19th century Gilded Age mentality of the conservatives on the Supreme Court!



Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito MUST Go!

Three members of the Supreme Court live in their own parallel world of the Founding Fathers and the Gilded Age and the 1920s, and refuse to consider modernization as a factor in their judicial judgments!

Antonin Scalia, appointed in 1986 by Ronald Reagan; Clarence Thomas, appointed in 1991 by George H. W. Bush; and Samuel Alito, appointed in 2006 by George W. Bush are a team of three, which has worked against gender equality,racial equality, fair treatment to immigrants, and gay rights, among other modern controversies.

Often, Chief Justice John Roberts joins them, and sometimes, but less often than Roberts, Justice Anthony Kennedy also joins to make a right wing five on the Court.

But Roberts and Kennedy have also taken stands with the four liberal justices on the Court lately–Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.

It is time to demand that Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito adjust to modern times, or else leave the Court, and there is a dire need to have a constitutional amendment to limit the terms of all federal judges at all levels, to promote open mindedness and diversity, and allow for change after, at most 18-20 years!

Supreme Court Expands Gay Marriage Rights To Five States, And Probably Six More, By Decision Not To Challenge Circuit Court Decisions!

The nation is moving much closer to the eventual reality of gay marriage being accepted by the Supreme Court, probably in 2016.

It is clear there are NOT five votes to stop it from happening, as Anthony Kennedy very clearly has joined the four “liberal” Justices on that issue, based on his vote in Lawrence V. Texas in 2003.

Therefore, the conservatives on the Court have decided to, at the least, delay a final decision by allowing what has been approved by different circuit courts to stand as legal.

So now, Oklahoma, Virginia, Wisconsin, Utah, and Indiana must allow gay marriage as a result, raising the number of states to 24, but with six more states likely to added in days, including Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina, making a total of 30 states and 60 percent of the nation!

Additionally, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals could rule similarly very soon, adding Alaska, Arizona, Montana, Nevada, and Idaho, making it 35 states.

The Religious Right will continue to promote hate and division, but they and right wing conservatives and Republicans will be repudiated for their stand, and in the long run, suffer dramatic decline in support, as they richly deserve to have happen to them, as they have shown the hypocrisy and falsehood of their religious and political philosophies!