I write to respectfully disagree with Gordon Weil’s guest column of Friday, Sept. 15, saying that Supreme Court decisions should be subject to Congressional and presidential review and even veto.

It’s not that the Supreme Court is a chaste and problem-free institution. I wrote my college thesis on the Rehnquist Court and my perception that they “co-opted” the concept of Federalism to support states’-rights-focused rulings. Justice Thomas, who’s nomination I adamantly opposed in 1991, has been a problematic justice ever since, especially recently as his accepting gifts from a wealthy supporter has come to light. There should be some standards and oversight for these things.

But not for their rulings. Congressional review, and especially presidential veto, completely goes against the essential purpose of the Court as a branch of government designed to be independent of political influence. Ironically, “too much judicial review” is exactly what has people worried. But involving the Court in the political process in any way would influence their decision making even more, making it more political, not less.

An independent judicial branch is what Alexander Hamilton envisioned and argued for in the Federalist Papers, and he was right. Maybe anyone with money can become President (it seems), but Justices must be amongst the elite, with the best education and understanding of the Constitution based on prior internships with Justices or seats on federal Courts. And they must understand “stare decisis” — the importance of precedents. Mr. Weil and others are concerned with their ability to overturn important precedents like Roe v. Wade too liberally and for the wrong reasons. This is a very valid concern. A good justice won’t do this. Unfortunately, President Trump was able to put four (four!) new justices on the Court, tipping the balance too far into conservatism. It should neither be too liberal.  Ideally it should be balanced, with a few truly independent justices “in the middle.” Historically, this has tended to be the best we can hope for.

Justices should also continue to have a lifetime term. What if they decide to make rulings based on their own personal beliefs before their time is up? And a good justice will, over time, become increasingly independent of personal and political beliefs. Sandra Day O’Connor is a great example. Appointed by Reagan, she wrote powerful, balanced decisions based on the right things. For example, she saw blatant quotas as being unconstitutional, while regarding affirmative action as potentially being constitutional if done a certain way. She was very fair, and she is missed.

And Clarence Thomas is an example of a bad justice, by most accounts, harboring his resentment over the “high-tech lynching” of his confirmation hearings for all of these years, and only now “coming out of his shell” (for years he didn’t even ask questions during oral arguments) because he has suddenly found himself surrounded by conservatives like himself. It is up to the Judiciary Committee (who should have seen past his race at that time), and the Senate, to confirm good justices. But their review should end there.

Hopefully, in time, the Court will become balanced again. In the meantime, the states are finding ways to protect a woman’s right to an abortion, just as the states did for same-sex marriage, as the Court backpedals. Still, compromising an independent judiciary would be even more of a disaster.

Jennifer Hodsdon is a Brunswick resident.

Copy the Story Link

« Previous

Elwood Watson: The puppet of the house

Next »

Tom Purcell: Dressing up for Senate success