Well, this is it. The final installment of what proved to be a not-so-epic series of diaries on some of the systemic/structural problems with the US system of government, and some suggestions for – I think – improving them.
I have to admit I am a little disappointed. I had been hoping to spur some interesting, wonky kind of threads, but instead the comments were largely limited to criticisms which mostly boiled down to, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I guess my contention is that it is, in fact, broke. I'm surprised that such a position didn't find a more sympathetic ear on this forum. But, as they say, c'est la vie. The "they" in this case being French. Or maybe Belgian.
So in this final entry I want to discuss the federal judiciary in general, and the Supreme Court in particular.
The Supreme Court has always been the most mysterious of the three branches of government. Much of this is because of their Bigfoot-like avoidance of cameras. Often the only evidence that a Supreme Court justice has been present are scattered tracks and, in Scalia's case, hair and droppings.
I don't necessarily object (see that? I used a lawyer-word!) to the court banning cameras from its proceedings. By doing so, the justices avoid having their cases turned into a media free-for-all. Also, they can show up to work with bed head and no one will ever know. That's a pretty sweet gig.
Seriously, though, there are some problems with the Supreme Court (and, by extension, the federal judiciary in general), not least of which is the fact that for much of modern history it has resembled some kind of octogenarian social club made up of members from a time so long ago that even Pepperidge Farm couldn't remember. So...
Make judicial appointments limited. The only government positions that are lifelong are either hereditary monarchs or self-appointed dictators, neither of which are exactly the kind of models we should be looking toward for our federal judges. How you gonna tell me that we elect freakin' dogcatchers every two years, but we let the highest jurists in the land stay in office until they keel over at their desks? Now, I'm certainly not suggesting that we elect federal judges and justices – that would be a fiasco ("Vote for Jack Anderson for Supreme Court. He'll rule for YOU."). But I do think these appointments should be limited. In the case of the Supreme Court, I think that they should have 9-year appointments. With 9 justices, that would mean that one seat on the bench would come up for appointment every year. You could also make the Chief Justice position rotating, perhaps held by whichever justice is in their final year. Now, I can foresee the arguments against this. Opponents would say that this will lead to a court that overturns past decisions based on its current ideological make-up. But I submit that if the justices know that any purely partisan decision will only be undone down the road, they may be more prone to making their judgments based on legal, rather than political, principles. At the very least a truly awful decision wouldn't necessarily stand for a long time.
Force justices to recuse themselves from cases involving those who appointed them and/or their families and associates. Ah, 2000, anyone? Did no one think it was fishy that two of the justices (Thomas and Souter) owed their positions to the father of one of the litigants? It's not a partisan complaint, because even if they had recused themselves the result would have been the same, since one voted for the Bush position (Thomas, what a surprise), and the other for the Gore position. It's just the principle. Then, of course, there's Scalia's remora-like attachment to various figures in the GOP heirarchy, including Dick Cheney, the RUNNING MATE of one of the litigants. For that matter, since Ginsberg and Breyer owed their positions to Gore's boss, and Gore may have had a hand in their selection, maybe they should have recused themselves, too. The point is that any other judge in the country would never be permitted to hear a case where the litigants had such close connections to him or her. So why should it be permitted in the highest court in the land? In cases where a justice must recuse themselves, there are, as I see it, two ways to proceed: Either the court can convene with less than 9 justices, or the next most senior federal judge (assuming they themselves have no conflict of interest) could be brought in as a substitute. Like coming up from the minors when the pitcher is injured. Alternatively, the TV judges with the highest ratings could be used. You have to admit it would be pretty awesome to watch Judge Judy chew out George W. Bush ("Listen, Governor, on your BEST day you're not as smart as I am on my worst day!"). I'd pay money to see that.
That's really all I have for the courts. Whether it's because they generally work pretty well or because I'm just not smart enough to think of anything else, I don't know.