« The Bipartisan Fix | Main | Why Interest Groups Don't Add Up »
July 17, 2005
Wanted: Judicial Turnover
|
Edward Lazarus, a lawyer in private practice, is author of "Closed Chambers: The Rise, Fall and Future of the Modern Supreme Court." |
It doesn't take a genius to see serious problems with the process for nominating and confirming Supreme Court justices, which has become an intense forum for playing out the civil war in our legal and political culture. The problem is coming up with solutions. My favorite idea, though by no means perfect, is to reform the confirmation process indirectly by replacing life tenure for each of the nine Supreme Court justices with a single, non-renewable 18-year term, with the starting dates for the terms of the justices staggered two years apart.
Under the current system, every Supreme Court vacancy occasions a political dogfight because the stakes are so terrifically high. Moving to a system that would regularize and increase turnover at the Court would drain each individual nomination and confirmation of some of its import — and thus perhaps reduce the level of contention that now accompanies every retirement. It would also stop the guessing game of which justice is going to retire or die under which presidential administration. Every president would get two picks per term — and we could go to the polls every fourth November with those stakes in mind.
Posted at July 17, 2005 03:58 PM
Comments
I am trying to locate an email address for Edward Lazarus. He has stated on numerous occasons in answer to questions that he believes that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided, but I can't find out why he believes that. Does he believe that Griswold V Conn was similarly wrongly decided? Once the right to privacy was established under Griwwold, then why wouldn't it extend to a woman's choice regarding carrying a fetus for nine months? Unless one is a Catholic there is no rational justification for equating a stem cell or fetus with a baby. A seed is not a tree because it has the potential to become one. What could be more private than a decision to engage in birth control.
My understanding is that Lazarus has problems with Brennan's trimester aspect of the decision. I appreciate the argument on that matter as to the assertion that this amounts to judicial lawmaking. But, in applying judicial common sense it makes sense that Justice O'Conner legislated a judicial bypass for minority notification. This kind of shaping the extremes of black and white decision making does not seem to be judicial activism.
How can I reach Lazarus for either a response or a writing of his that explains his position on Roe being wrongly decided. He stated that he believes that the woman's right to an abortion could be justified by other legal reasoning. What is that reasoning?
Posted by: Gordon Gamm at July 28, 2005 02:08 PM
It only gets better - if one of the justices dies before 18 years is up, then the court would grow to be enormous.
Posted by: basher b at July 18, 2005 11:59 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't having every president entitled to two picks per term mean there'd be more than 9 justices?
Posted by: b-psycho at July 17, 2005 09:06 PM