Threats of Restructuring the Supreme Court

-

Our government was originally set up by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution with a series of checks and balances. Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. They also serve for a term of “good behavior” which means that they can serve for life or until they choose to resign. This process includes the participation of both the executive and legislative branches and serves to reduce any obligations on the part of the justices or concerns for re-election. It is a process that serves and protects justice, even if you happen to disagree with a particular decision that the Supreme Court may make.
            Unfortunately, recently a number of high-profile Senate Democrats have started to threaten the Supreme Court with restructuring. They argue that the Court has become too influenced by politics. See Senate Dems deliver stunning warning to Supreme Court: "Heal" or face restructuring. And according to a recent poll, it seems that a large number of Americans also believe that “the Supreme Court was motivated by politics more than by the law."See Quinnipiac University Poll  Perhaps these individuals don’t like it when things don’t go the way they think they should, or perhaps they are merely misinformed about how some of the justices have actually been voting. Yes, it is true that currently conservatives currently hold the majority over liberals 5-4 on the Supreme Court.  However, I would bet that many of these people do not realize that that President Trump’s two nominees, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, have actually recently sided with the liberal justices in certain cases. See Gorsuch sides with liberal bloc once more, in sex offender case In fact, throughout history, it is very common for Supreme Court justices to view cases in ways that may be the polar opposite to how their nominating President would want things to go. This takes us back to how the Supreme Court was set up in the first place. To be quite honest, I, too, side with these Democratic senators on the merits of the particular case pending before the Court. However, to me, the threats and the warnings of restructuring the Supreme Court sound like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum when he doesn’t get the toy he wants.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Our Right to Privacy: Is it Protected on the Internet?

-
Image
According to Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis, we have a constitutional right to privacy. This basically means we have the "right to be left alone"  (See Right to Privacy) . But when Justice Brandeis wrote these words, I do not believe that he could have conceived what they would mean in the context of the Internet. When we join in communication over the world wide web, do we have a right to privacy over our personal data and speech? Or, by sending this information out into the stratosphere, do we release all expectations and rights to privacy? Most of us are completely unaware that we have lost privacy to our personal data. In fact, the business model upon which most of the Internet sites that we use is not actually compatible with privacy, as they need to discover our spending habits in order to optimize ad revenue. Additionally, only "12.5% of US retailers protect customers from fraudulent emails"  (See #Privacy).  This leaves customers open to cyber cri
Read more

By Anonymous

-
Image
"For my generation, being anonymous is no longer an option"  (See The Privacy Divide) . Wow. A pretty strong and somewhat scary statement. Is it true? Or, is it simply hyperbole? When I stop to think about my social media footprint and the platforms frequented all day everyday by my friends and acquaintances, the answer is plain to see. My generation lives its life in the public view. We are all, in a sense, public celebrities, as we share all the details from where we are, to what we are doing, to what we ate for dinner on the internet. Will we be forever haunted by our online presence? Can we do anything to put the brakes on this speeding train of losing our personal right to privacy? Does true personal privacy no longer exist in a world dominated by social media and technology? I think there are a few ways that we can try to limit our public exposure. Personally, I have accounts on virtually every common social media account like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Snapch
Read more

President vs. The Media

-
Image
The First Amendment to the Constitution protects freedom of the press. This important right was meant to serve as a protector of democracy. Since the establishment of our government, the press has served as the people's "watchdog." It interviews and investigates in order to keep government and governmental officials honest. While the average citizen may not pay much attention to what is going on in Washington D.C., the press's eyes are always open, vigilantly watching the government's every move. They inform the public of what is going on both in front of and behind closed doors. Journalists have been named the "custodians of conscience,... looking for violations of the moral order … the norms concerning what’s right and wrong” ( See American Media: The Nations' Watchdog. ) This role of overseer has resulted in a contentious relationship between the press and the current president, Donald Trump. President Trump has virtually declared war on the news m
Read more