The popularity of Trump discourages the idea that the solution for repeated, radical revision of the Constitution by the Supremes is for judges to face popular election.
Perhaps the answer is for them to be denied their life tenure in favor of terms of four or six years, each depending on nomination by the president and confirmation by the senate.
And maybe to this should be added the possibility of being recalled in the midst of a term, by the senate, the president, or both acting together.
This might not prevent judicial creativity in interpreting the Constitution, but it would at least go some distance to tying creativity to the will, if not of the people, then of the highest office holders among the classe politique.
That would actually lend some credibility to the claims of partisans of the living constitution that their novel and sometimes outrageous interpretations reflect not just the will of the judges, but also contemporary standards, exigencies, and preferences, when not plausibly the text, it's proper meaning at the time of the text's adoption, or what it meant in the eyes of any special set of persons at the time or since, or what the point of the thing was.
No comments:
Post a Comment