This whole idea of stacking the supreme court seems to go against the spirit of what the supreme court supposedly does, which is constitutional review. When the Supreme Court justices' rulings reflect the party that simultaneously controls the presidency and the senate at the time of the justices' appointments, it says that the supreme court will allow or disallow laws according to the views of the party that was in control at the time of the appointments, not according to the constitution. It reminds me how some religious leaders use the parts of the bible that fit their agenda to interpret God's laws. Supreme court justices use the parts of the constitution and interpret those parts to fit their liberal or conservative agenda. Adding 2 more justices when a democrat gets in the White House, as I've heard proposed as a possible solution to the conservative majority problem, won't do a thing to address the sad state of constitutional review. Just the fact that at one point the Supreme Court decides that campaign spending regulations are allowed (McConnell, 2003), and then at another point that they are disallowed (Citizens United, 2010) shows there is more going on than simply trying to best of one's ability as a Supreme Court justice to interpret the Constitution fairly and accurately. It might make more sense to have Supreme Court rulings about constitutionality be merely advisory and non-binding. I doubt that will ever happen though. We will continue to battle for the right to stack the Supreme Court with like minded individuals, true and honorable constitutional review be damned.
|