Someone please identify the individual described below?
"In his final years on the Court, he became indifferent to his judicial duties -- he reportedly left much of the writing of opinions to his clerks and sometimes didn't bother to read the briefs submitted by counsel. Instead, he apparently spent many hours watching television in his chambers, especially soap operas. People magazine called him a devotee of Days Of Our Lives ... he once told a fellow justice that you could learn a lot about life from soap operas. Despite the fact that he wasn't quite giving it his all, he didn't want to leave, since he would probably be replaced by someone of the opposite political persuasion. With cantankerous tongue in cheek, he used to tell his clerks, 'If I die, prop me up and keep on voting'."
Can you I hear a loud amen to term limits?
Do I find myself in agreement with a Boston Globe columnist? Perish the thought ... but I believe the answer is yes.
As if I didn't have enough conflict in my life, I had to start reading your blog!
Your suggesting of term limits is tempting, especially given recent developments. Judicial appointments are a crapshoot because the judges inconveniently expire somewhat randomly. Lately, it seems that Republican administrations get to name a disproportionate number of judges. That frightens me. Still, against this fear I must balance my disinclination to tinker with something that has worked for so long (like filibusters ;-) ). Bottom line: I don't know! Upsides and downsides, I suppose. Now I have something new to ponder. Thanks a bunch, Jeff!
Posted by: Rob Ryan | September 13, 2005 at 19:37
I'm not a fan of judicial term limits. I think the independence of the judiciary is a vital component of the checks and balances of our system. Term limits potentially impinge on judicial independence because a judge knows that he or she must return to "private" life when the term is up. It would be tempting for judges to rule in ways that will benefit them economically or politically when their terms expire. In short, I think term limits likely would have the effect of further politicizing the judiciary. A better solution to the problem presented in the quoted news column might be a mandatory retirement age for judges.
Posted by: dopderbeck | September 14, 2005 at 11:37
Hmmm ... no takers on identifying the individual in my post??
Need a hint?
Posted by: Dawn Treader | September 14, 2005 at 12:06
David,
Fair point. I love the mandatory retirement age idea. Know the last president that tried introducing legislature similar to your suggestion?
Posted by: Dawn Treader | September 14, 2005 at 12:07
Thurgood Marshall. Seems I heard a similar anecdote at some point, anyway.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | September 14, 2005 at 13:44
Rob, you are definitely good.
An airport now bears his name:
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2005-05-11-bwi-thurgood_x.htm
Posted by: Dawn Treader | September 14, 2005 at 14:51
David:I'm not a fan of judicial term limits. I think the independence of the judiciary is a vital component of the checks and balances of our system.Agreed.
A mandatory retirement age seems too arbitrary for me, because some people deteriorate much earlier than others.
If you're going to tinker with the judiciary, go with the system I've been arguing for: a mandatory 2/3 confirmation for all federal judicial appointments (including SCOTUS). In this way, justices would require wide support to gain confirmation, irrespective of which party is in power at the moment. And more extreme candidates (left or right) wouldn't stand a chance.
If judicial restraint is truly our goal, and if we want to keep extremist idealogues off the court, then that's the only solution that makes sense.
Posted by: tgirsch | September 19, 2005 at 16:44
Oh, and I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a method for removing justices, but that would have to be by an even wider margin, 75% of both chambers, for example. Or a unanimous vote by the other members of the court. The offense that gets you forcibly removed from the court would have to be pretty egregious, IMO.
Posted by: tgirsch | September 19, 2005 at 16:46
If judicial restraint is truly our goal, and if we want to keep extremist idealogues off the court, then that's the only solution that makes sense.
Agreed. I really liked John Roberts characterization of himself. "I am a modest judge" Bingo.
That is exactly what we need -- modest judges -- non-extremists.
Posted by: Dawn Treader | September 20, 2005 at 15:08
Except that we really don't know that this is what we're getting in Roberts. Which is why you see people on the left and right alike warily eyeing him. At the end of the day, nobody really knows what kind of justice Roberts will be, and we won't really know until he starts ruling. It's doubtful that he'll be another Ginsburg, but he could be another Souter or another Thomas or anywhere in between.
Posted by: tgirsch | September 20, 2005 at 17:56
What I mean to say is, in Roberts, we very well could be getting an extremist. Nobody really knows. Much of the right is hoping for one, and upset at the possibility that he might not be one. Much of the left is afraid that he'll be one, without really knowing, because there's not much record to look at.
What record does exist, doesn't give me very many warm-and-fuzzies. When someone refers to the "so-called right to privacy," that concerns me a great deal. When that same someone has a questionable record on race, it concerns me even more.
But we won't know whether or not any of these concerns are founded until after he's confirmed. (And he will be confirmed.)
Posted by: tgirsch | September 20, 2005 at 17:58
No, Ginsburg is an extremist.
From the Associated Press:
"NEW YORK (AP) - Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an audience Wednesday that she doesn't like the idea of being the only female justice on the Supreme Court. But in choosing to fill one of the two open positions on the court, "any woman will not do," she said.
There are "some women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women's rights," Ginsburg told those gathered at the New York City Bar Association."
Advance human rights? Women's rights? Sounds like a social agenda. I thought she was a justice on the Supreme Court.
We need modest judges ... not people on a mission to re-engineer society according to their personal views.
Roberts says he is a modest judge. As you said, we will see about that.
Posted by: Dawn Treader | September 22, 2005 at 13:39
Advance human rights? Women's rights? Sounds like a social agenda.Possibly so, but does that qualify her as an extremist? If so, then virtually every justice on the bench is an "extremist."
And in any case, if you consider human rights and women's rights to be "extremist" causes, then you're beginning to frighten me. ;)
Posted by: tgirsch | September 26, 2005 at 12:50
It should be noted that a justice should be weighed not based upon what they say outside of the court, but how they rule within it. And Ginsburg's record in that regard has been widely distorted and overblown.
Posted by: tgirsch | September 26, 2005 at 12:53
She is a judge on the Supreme Court for goodness sake -- not a moral reformer.
Posted by: Dawn Treader | September 27, 2005 at 05:31
"Advance human rights"
Huh, I wouldn't think that things like ending segregatyion, Jim Crow laws, workplace discrimination agaisnt women and minorities, protecitng people form the abuses of power were extremists positions. And I find it extraordinary that you would think the Constittuion allows those abuses.
Posted by: kevin | September 27, 2005 at 09:30
Let's call a duck a duck: Your problem with Ginsburg isn't that she's a "moral reformer," it's that to your mind, she's the wrong kind of moral reformer.
Posted by: tgirsch | September 27, 2005 at 17:33
Let's call a duck a duck: Your problem with Ginsburg isn't that she's a "moral reformer," it's that to your mind, she's the wrong kind of moral reformer.
Not at all. Human rights are good -- women's rights too.
My issue is with the job description for Ginsburg's job. She wasn't appointed to be a moral reformer. She was appointed to a justice of the supreme court. She was appointed to consider cases before the court in light of the constitution. That is her job -- not reforming society. Nobody elected her.
Remember, absolutely no idealogues on the SCOTUS ... that is what I have been consistently hearing all through the Roberts' nomination.
I am beginning to suspect nobody really believes that -- even the stuffed shirts who keep blathering it.
Posted by: Dawn Treader | September 28, 2005 at 10:01
She was appointed to consider cases before the court in light of the constitution.
True, but the question is how is the constitution to be interpreted? It is, after all, open to interpretation. Nobody supports being able to make stuff up out of whole cloth, but there are some who go too far the other way (in my estimation), taking a too-literal reading of the document. As your experience with scripture teaches you, a too-literal reading is equally as perilous as a too-open reading.
Take the right to privacy. No, it is not explicitly listed in the Constitution as such. But the fourth amendment certainly seems to presume some right to personal freedom from government intrusion. In fact, the amendment makes little sense without such an assumption. Couple that with the ninth amendment (recognizing that rights not explicitly listed may still be worthy of protection), and a good case can be made for contitutional protection of that right. This is not a way-out-there, wild, activist reading, by the way. It's a perfectly reasonable conclusion, even if not all agree on that conclusion.
By way of counterexample, arguing that the right to bear arms is somehow a collective right rather than an individual one (as the court has indeed ruled in the past) seems to me to be directly at odds with how the second amendment is written.
What I do not support is the "original intent" argument, because this argument assumes (1) that we can somehow accurately divine the framers' intent; (2) that we should apply such 18th century intent in the 21st century; and (3) that the framers were even of a single mind when ratifying the document (they were not). So what you end up with is what Kevin and others call "historical fishing expeditions," where people look for some writing by some framer that supports your particular point of view. (More reading on originalism.)
So essentially, when dealing with the constitution, I think you have to deal with what is actually written in the Constitution, but in so doing, you cannot ignore what is implicit in those writings, or the implications of those writings.Remember, absolutely no idealogues on the SCOTUSThat would certainly be ideal (and my 2/3 approval suggestion would get us closer to that), but I must say it surprises me (pleasantly) to hear you suggest that, as this would disqualify, for example, justices like Bork.I am beginning to suspect nobody really believes that -- even the stuffed shirts who keep blathering it.That should probably read "especially" rather than "even." For the stuffed shirts, the problem isn't ideologues on the bench, it's the wrong kind of ideologues.
Posted by: tgirsch | September 28, 2005 at 12:42
Closing italics.
Posted by: kevin | September 28, 2005 at 12:56
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ideologue
i·de·o·logue Pronunciation Key (d--lôg, -lg, d-)
n.
An advocate of a particular ideology, especially an official exponent of that ideology.
Given this defintion of ideologue, is there technically anyone who is not an ideologue? Seriously ...
Posted by: Dawn Treader | September 28, 2005 at 14:33
#1, Please close my hanging italics tag after "collective" in the comment above. Sorry about that.
#2, Not everyone is an ideologue if you don't ignore the "especially" part after the comma.
#3, This a problem with abridged dictionaries that leave out the connotations associated with words. For a much better rendering of the common meaning of the word, as it is typically used (and the way I believe you used it above), see Merriam-Webster's defintion:an impractical idealistan often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology
Posted by: tgirsch | September 28, 2005 at 15:17