Balancing The Court, For Once

THE SUPREME COURT should be comprised of nine people who are either moderate politically, or whose politically ideology is not identifiable as either liberal or conservative.  This has never been the case. For its entire history the court has been infected blatant partisanship, because presidents cannot resist the temptation to try to mold the body in their own image, and because the court is manned, and womaned, by human beings. Our newly nominated justice is a far right extremist, nominated for that precise reason, and is therefore unqualified, like most court members are unqualified because of there personal biases, and should disqualified from consideration. What is needed is a court consisting entirely of centrist judges, or an ideologically balanced court, with equal numbers of liberals and conservatives, rendering equal justice under law. Democrats are being admonished not to criticize Trump's nominee on account of her religion. They probably have enough intelligence to not need this obvious advice. The opposition will be and should be remindful of their opposition to Reagan's nominee, Justice Bork, back in 1987, when he was excoriated for being a far right extremist, and rejected. The Democrats will and should remind the country what America would look like if decades of legal protections for LGBTQ people, other minorities, poor people, and the environment were rolled back, on the right wing basis that government had become too intrusive and is overstepping its constitutional authority. The reason this nominee is unqualified is that she, like most court members, was chosen for the wrong reason. Being a far right conservative is not a qualification for being on the Supreme court. If anything, it is a reason to be disqualified. The two suggested remedies, both gaining momentum, are to impose term limits on the court, maybe ten or twenty years, and to add new members. Also, achieving ideological balance as a requirement by screening all candidates beforehand would ensure balance. Often judges put aside their personal prejudices, and render decisions base on the facts of the case at hand. But all too often personal political biases influence and determine the outcome of the decisions, turning decisions into purely partisan ideological contests. When this happens, the highest court in the land is nothing more than another political battleground and deserves the same low marks usually reserved for the president and congress.