Friday, June 21, 2002
Where have you gone Oliver Cromwell?
I've been away for a week and so I'm just catching up on some news now. I was keenly interested in the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision on the legality of executing mentally retarded convicts. I was turned on to this decision by an article I had read some weeks ago but cannot at the moment remember its author or title. Regardless, what has struck me most from reports is the following comment criticizing the court's decision:
- "The arrogance of this assumption of power takes one's breath away."
Nino, you are a disgrace. Should a man with such a clear political agenda [this is the part where I abandon the story that brought the subject to mind in the first place] be allowed to continue on the highest court in the land? I don't object to jurists having a political stance. I think it's natural that some people who are in constant review of our laws would develop very strong or even radical views on how this country should create and execute our laws. However, I think such people should be vetted out of the running for the supreme court by our senate. Unfortunately the system has become such that each side is now looking for the most politicized jurist possible to fill the next vacancy (which I'm betting will come immediately after the next election if W retains his office). One thing that seems to have been lost on many people in the land is that according to the Constitution, "judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour."
The link is to a book on the subject published in September 2001. I haven't read it. What I'd like to find is some good discussion on the subject of what good behavior is and how/why judges (supreme or lower) have been impeached for it. My point is this. Ultimately the judges serve at our discretion, far from a life appointment if we don't like them, and we should remind them than conduct such as that in Bush v. Gore is unbecoming of our constitutional supervisors. The constitution exists because the people ratified it. Our judges serve at our pleasure. If an act is so egregious, they should be removed. Some of those on the current court have so offended the rule of law in the past that they should be removed. A highly political affair you suggest? Especially given the way the last election was decided, you continue. It is for precisely that reason, that the outcome was so brazenly political, that the conduct of the justices should be scrutinized and, if necessary, those deemed to have behaved poorly (thereby violating their one and only mandate) should be impeached. I know this won't happen because the politicians charged with the investigation could not sustain the opposition to their actions. However, were a media source to do much of the leg-work for them (as has happened many times in the past), the need for further and official investigation would be undeniable. All those that serve at the discretion of the people are accountable. Nothing in the papers of the justices concerning the last election could be deemed national security. Also, they have no clients but the people and thus no privilege to claim. And no, this wouldn't stop judges from being politically motivated in their decisions; nor would it stop any judge from issuing a controversial or unpopular decision. Vincent Bugliosi is certainly angry enough to call for not simply their impeachment but their trial for crimes.
- posted by levinson @ 6/21/2002 07:24:00 PM
