Do We Have the Supreme Court We Deserve

 

The column by Linda Greenhouse makes the reader focus on the changing approach of the justices to the role of the court. Ms. Greenhouse makes clear that unlike its predecessors, the current majority exhibits little regard for precedent and an increased willingness to do the political bidding of its appointor. A court of last resort and national scope, as is the Supreme Court, must achieve a delicate balance between respect for settled law and the flexibility to adapt to a changing world.

Rather than rely upon the broadening of wisdom and understanding, hoped for qualities as justices mature, a surer way would be to make appointments for a fixed term, say fifteen years, on a staggered basis, with a turnover of three justices every five years.

While such a mechanism may not insure respect for precedent ( for that we would have to rely upon a judge’s ingrained training and the presence of the longer serving justices ) but it would increase the likelihood that a fresh approach, one more in sync with the popular will, would be brought to the decision-making process.