Opinions

By Austin Morris

Staff Writer

Supreme Court confirmations are block-buster affairs in Washington. Complete with grandstanding politicians sat firmly on the moral high ground and nauseating, round-the-clock coverage in the news. This level of attention is justified, as the person confirmed to sit on the Court will make decisions concerning the fundamental rights of millions of people for generations to come.

Something else permeates the whirlwind of hearings, protests, and votes, however. A malicious politicization has occurred in our court system and has existed in it for centuries. Something so vital that forms a cornerstone of our democracy and serves as a bulwark against abuses of the constitutional rights of American citizens requires safeguarding against the effects of party politics.

In this environment, making structural changes to an institution like the Supreme Court are nearly impossible. The partisan fervor would drown out any reasonable arguments, but if we could look beyond that, we would see that the need for a fairer court is immediate.

The first, and perhaps most important change to be made would be to set term limits on newly confirmed justices to the Court. The arguments against this are numerous, but the most common is highlighted in this quote from an article written by Daniel Epps and Ganesh Sitaraman in the Harvard Law Review, “Term limits have other drawbacks as well. They might make the Court even more political, rather than less, by guaranteeing Court nominations are an election issue every two years...” They miss the point, however, that nominations to the Supreme Court are already at the top of every discussion regarding the consequences of elections. Term limits being applied would not change that but would allow us to have a Court that is more reflective of the outcome of democratic elections over time.

Secondly, there must be a binding code of ethics for sitting justices that dictates how they may interact with politicians, private businesses, or any other government or private entity with interest in the government. It would shock most to find out that while most other judiciaries in the nation are bound by an ethical code or commission, the Supreme Court is entirely free of this constraint. An ethics commission would serve to ensure the integrity of those serving at the highest level of the law and ensure the separation of justices from political intrigue.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78 that, “It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter...” We have seen repeatedly that this has not always been the case. The Court has acted on several occasions either to affirm the usurpation of individual rights, or the wholesale destruction of them. Such power must be governed closely by the people whom its decisions would impact, and the simplest solution is to grant those impacted people the chance to have a say more often in the composition and rules which regulate it. That is why term limits are necessary, to not force future generations to live with decisions made 30 years ago. That is also why there must be standardized rules for how those entrusted with that power may conduct themselves. There is a collective duty owed to future generations to safeguard the liberties we enjoy now, and with the increasing politicization of the Supreme Court, it is vital that we act now for these reforms.