Open/Close Menu وکیل | مشاوره رایگان | وکالت | وکیل آنلاین

Democrats have continued their relentless attacks on the Supreme Court and its conservative majority. This week, members of the Senate and House of Representatives introduced bills to impose term limits, regular confirmation programs and other changes. In introducing the legislation, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D, RI), Rep. Hank Johnson (D, Ga.), and others left no doubt that this is just the latest effort to tip the balance of power in the Court’s favor. A liberal majority of such comments make the bill look like little more than legal graffiti.

Legislation, The law on the establishment and modernization of the retirement period of the Supreme Court, sets a maximum term of 18 years to serve in the court. After that stage, they are forced to take the “senior position”. It gives the president the power to nominate Supreme Court justices every two years—in the first and third years after a presidential election.

It’s no coincidence that under this system, the first to go would be Clarence Thomas (at age 30), followed by Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito when they reach the limit.

Even if the bill were to win a majority (which is highly unlikely), it would face an immediate challenge because it would add new Article 3 restrictions on lifetime tenure.

Any challenge will have a record full of self-defeating statements from sponsors that leave no doubt that their real motivation is to get rid of the conservative majority in response to rulings they oppose.

Many still claim to accept an interpretation of the Constitution that they disagree with, as expressed by the representative. Johnson, “Crisis of Legitimacy.” When the court rules in a way that is approved by these members, it is a constitutional victory. When it fails to do so, it is a constitutional crisis.

Representative Johnson He went further To emphasize that illegitimacy is also because five justices were appointed by George W. Bush and Donald Trump: “Five of the six conservative justices on the table were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote.” And now they are competing. “To impose an agenda beyond their reach on the American people who do not want it.”

Therefore, they call for this radical action “as a necessary step to restore balance to this extreme and unrestrained majority on the court.”

House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D., N.Y.) also offered golden material for future challengers, saying the changes are designed to combat “all of the damaging, untouchable Supreme Court rulings of the past year.” Without changing the court, he added, “we’re going to be left with a backward majority for a generation or more.”

Other sponsors include Reps. David Siciliane (RI), Shelia Jackson Lee (TX), Steve Cohen (TN), Karen Bass (CA), and Ro Khanna (CA).

It also reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the court’s role, commonly expressed by Democratic members. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has declared the Supreme Court unconstitutional He has called for the court to be closed To criticize “broad public opinion”.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, DN.Y. He even questioned the value of the institution: “How much does the current structure help us? And I don’t think so.” He has now He demanded impeachment From Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, based on Totally false claim they lied under oath In their approval meetings. After Dobbs’ decision, Ocasio-Cortez called for “There must be consequences“For the court

The concern with this legislation is not whether it will pass, but how it will reflect a fundamental attack on our judiciary and constitutional system. It was not so long ago that other members of both parties condemned such crude partisan attacks. It is now not only acceptable, but popular, to demand that you pack the court with your political allies.

This crisis of faith is evident in other key constituencies in our system, including our law schools. Law professors love it Berkeley Dean Ervin Chemrinksi called the judges “partisan hacks.”While others have advocated targeting individual judges in their own homes. This was announced by Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chaffetz “When the mob is right, some (but not all!) more aggressive tactics are justified.” Lately President and Dean of the Hastings College of Law of California David Feigman questioned the legitimacy of the court After the verdict in Women’s Health Organization Dobbs v. Jackson.

From Congress to the press and universities, the basis of the Court has been challenged. What is remarkable is that these are also the voices of some of the most powerful figures in our society. Instead of trying to moderate the mob, they incite anger with such reckless rhetoric. There are good faith objections to this decision, but these objections challenge the legitimacy of the holding and not the institution itself. As Benjamin Franklin noted, “The Constitution of the United States does not guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to reach it yourself.”

Write a comment:


Your email address will not be published.