[CTRL] Means-Let's limit tenure of Supreme Court justices

[William Shannon]

http://www.newsmakingnews.com/


THOMAS JEFFERSON WORRIED THAT ONE DAY THE SUPREME COURT WOULD BECOME
DANGEROUS.� YOU WERE RIGHT, MR. PRESIDENT.

Let's limit tenure of Supreme Court justices

by Marianne Means � 2/28/01 Miami Herald.

Having created a president by distorting its own previous judicial reasoning,
the Supreme Court is heady with power. The justices' latest outrage was to
deny the right of the federal government to enforce the Americans with
Disabilities Act by immunizing states from discrimination suits brought under
the law. Congress, the court said, did not have the authority to intervene in
the employment contracts of the sovereign states except in rare, strictly
defined circumstances. The high bench blithely dismissed a long record of
mistreatment of the disabled by state and local government agencies as
behavior well within ``rational'' budget-making priorities. The court held
that the act interfered with an employer's freedom to force workers to use
``existing facilities.'' In other words, it's a costly nuisance to build
wheelchair ramps or widen toilet doors. Obviously, this decision was more
about penny-pinching than helping the disabled stay in the job mainstream. It
also continued the court's recent campaign to reduce congressional power over
the rights of states. In ruling for George W. Bush, the conservative majority
of the court found that the GOP-controlled Florida Legislature outranked the
Democratic-dominated Florida Supreme Court. But now that the court's
preferred candidate is safely in the White House, the 5-4 majority has
returned to its theme of upholding the superiority of state courts. More than
100 years ago, Lord Acton astutely observed that while power tends to
corrupt, ``absolute power corrupts absolutely.'' That's what's wrong with the
Supreme Court today. Its credibility has been strained by its presidential
ruling. But instead of exercising the judicial restraint that conservatives
always profess to admire, the Supreme Court majority has become unabashedly
arrogant. There are several theories on why this has happened: That the
conservatives are convinced their numbers soon will be reinforced by Bush
appointees of a similar ideological ilk, after which they will have virtually
unfettered freedom to defy Congress and any other rival institution.�
�That the ultraconservative Justice Antonin Scalia is terrifying the
less-ideological justices into submission.�
�That the justices are so isolated, they do not realize that a struggle for
power with Congress can create a backlash against them. The real problem here
is the smugness born of lifetime tenure. Basically, no federal judge can be
removed from office once confirmed, except for serious misconduct or crime.
Scalia and the others have abused the privilege. It is time we changed that.
Officials of the legislative and executive branches operate within an
electoral system in which their performance is regularly evaluated. The
Supreme Court and the lower federal courts should have limited terms, too.
Voters should be allowed to approve or reject them, as is now the case with
state courts. Or justices should be routinely retired after a specific period
so that an incumbent president may appoint someone new. Thomas Jefferson
rightly worried that the Supreme Court would become dangerous some day.
Congress should consider a constitutional amendment to end lifetime tenure.
It would require ratification by three fourths of the states, a difficult but
not impossible hurdle. In a letter to a judge in 1821, Jefferson wrote,``The
great object of my fear is the federal judiciary .�.�. that body, like
gravity, ever-acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advances, gaining
ground step by step.'' Jefferson, as on so many other issues, was ahead of
his time. And wise, oh so wise.