Critics of the Supreme Court have used every way to change the balance or decisions of the court, from threats to impeachment to harassment of judges in their homes or restaurants. Some of these reckless practices have been encouraged by law professors, including a Georgetown law professor who encouraged more “aggressive” measures By targeting judges now, Brian Shepherd, Seton Hall Legal Associate has it called for Congress to “buy off” judges by providing them with “huge sums of money.” If needed, he suggests, President Joe Biden could scrape together the dough to get the justices to cash in and leave.
Dean Shepherd insists that offering large sums of money “can be effective without damaging the integrity of the institution.” Many of us would beg to differ.
While Shepard touts the benefits of encouraging general court turnover, he also notes that “the most notable turn in the positive direction coincided with the recent shift to a 6-3 split in favor of Republican-appointed judges.”
In fairness to Shepherd, most of his columns use buyouts to dissuade justices from staying on the court until a president with shared values is available to appoint his successor. “But Supreme Court justices are human, and humans care about more than politics,” he notes. “They also care about money.”
It appears that most of the judges who will be offered windfall payments will be Republican appointees. (Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan). It would allow President Biden to appoint an immediate judicial majority as well as a chief justice.
While Shepherd acknowledges that some will protest that “for many people who are angry at the court, the buyouts may seem like a reward for bad behavior.” However, he says this is easier than collapsing the court or changing it through a constitutional amendment.
So here is what Luca Brasi’s school of judicial integrity suggests:
“Congress should provide substantial buyouts to any Supreme Court justice who retires after reaching 10 years of service on the Supreme Court. The five justices who have already exceeded that number will be eligible if they retire within a year.” “The terms of receiving this payment will be. To overcome the considerable appeal of ideological power, the total must be in the millions.”
However, it only gets worse. Dean Sheppard suggests that “if Congress cannot be persuaded to pass a buyout plan, then President Biden could raise enough discretionary funds to do so. Money under his control“
So we want President Joe Biden to offer millions to conservative justices to leave the court — and change the philosophical makeup in Democrats’ favor.
Dean Shepherd dismisses any concerns about making a seat-for-cash deal. Not only is this suggestion seen as harmless, but he suggests that those who degenerate are only showing their own nefarious or nefarious motives: “The denial of justice provides useful information to the public and an assessment of their level of commitment. makes it easier. The power of the office and in turn to the political command.
It could also be because Shepherd’s proposal is considered too offensive and dangerous by many lawyers and jurists. Article III grants lifetime tenure to prevent judges from being pressured or manipulated by political figures.
He admits that “[o]Giving large sums of public money to the powerful is not an ideal solution. However, he cited the failure of Congress to change the composition of the Court as the necessity of such action and the “legislative impasse . . . It forces us to consider the best course of action. The Supreme Court may not be worth a carrot, but a grand jury can swing a stick when it’s cracked.
Here is an alternative idea. Why don’t we put aside both the stick and the carrot and let the court function as it was originally designed? At least it is a thought.
In The Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton explained that tenure for life was to protect the court from manipulation or influence:
“In a monarchy, it is an excellent barrier against the tyranny of the prince. In a republic, it is not a very great barrier against the encroachments and tyranny of the delegation. And this is the best expedient that can be thought of in any government to ensure the uniform, correct and impartial implementation of laws.”
The idea of cash seats seemed to come up only when the balance of the court shifted to a stable conservative majority and, as Dean Shepard points out, legal solutions to change the court were not found. The court needs neither carrot nor stick. This requires respect for the institution as a whole, regardless of whether it conforms to the views of Congress or the people. Offering seats for cash is as dangerous as it is offensive to the court.