When the SCOTUS Oversteps Its Bounds   Leave a comment

Ruth Bader Ginsberg has never impressed me as a Supreme Court Justice. I think her job has something to do with a familiarity with the US Constitution, but since she usually references international law in her opinions, I think she may not being doing the actual job of a Supreme Court justice. I suspect she has never read the Constitution … not of the United States, anyway.

But, that’s not what I’m writing about today. Lately, Ginsberg has been offering her opinion on Donald Trump. First she threatened to quit the Supreme Court if he won the general election.

Bye, bye, Ruthie, you won’t be missed. Please don’t damage my gate on your way out … in other words, get out of its way. I suspect most Americans (as opposed to people who live here to try and change society to that of somewhere else) feel the same way I do. Could we trade her in and get Scalia back? No, I don’t wish the Obama administration had killed her instead of Scalia … often. I try to listen to my better angels. It’s just really hard with this particular woman because she is the epitome of progressive activism at its most abusive.

But, hey, you know she won’t actually quit if Trump becomes President, anymore than Stephen Baldwin moved to Canada after Obama’s reelection. Words are wind and she’s a gas bag.

But, now she’s apparently decided to offer her opinion more specifically.


Trump has now demanded that she resign. That wouldn’t really mean much to me except that Trump is having one of those “broke clock right twice a day” moments.

It is extremely inappropriate¬†for the “non-political” arm of the division of power structure to insinuate itself into the partisan political process. It rips off the illusion of neutrality. Maybe that’s a good thing. The Supreme Court has ceased to be neutral and we all ought to realize that. That still doesn’t mean we shouldn’t discipline justices who engage in it.

Here in Alaska, judges are appointed and they can serve for life, but three years after their appointment and every 10 years thereafter their names are placed on the election ballot for retention. I vote 99% to not retain judges because I observe that most judges wield their power in dictatorial ways and that increases with their length of time in office. My 1% contrarian vote is for the judge who actually appears to be a good judge. My fellow voters vote to retain 95% of the time, so we the voters have released only two judges since statehood, although some communities have voted not to retain magistrates.

I believe the Supreme Court should be under the same system. The Constitution does not proscribe lifetime appointments of Supreme Court justices. The document was silent on the topic and lifetime appointment is simply a tradition that evolved because the SCOTUS was supposed to be the non-political arm of the federal government. We didn’t want them subject to wholesale replacement with every president and we wanted to protect them from the political process so they could cool our passions when needed.

The SCOTUS ceased to perform that roll decades ago, but Ginsburg is a glorious example of just how corrupt and inappropriate that body has become. So which presidential candidate is more likely to do something sweeping to fix the Supreme Court?

Hillary won’t because Ginsburg is obviously a supporter and Hillary wants as many progressive activists on the Court as she can get.

Trump would try to fire Ginsburg, discover that he doesn’t have that power and then lobby Congress to do so … and then it would be over because Trump is much more interested in the economy and foreign trade than he is in the Supreme Court. He considers them an afterthought.

Johnson … Johnson might actually do something. Because he doesn’t owe his career to Capitol Hill entrenchment, he has every reason to think outside of the elitist box and to shake up some traditions favoring the elites. Start with firing Ginsburg for being inappropriate, then ask Congress for 1/3 of the justices to be placed on the ballot every four years and any new appointee to be on the next ballot. Probably, most will be retained, but the egregious ones — the ones at the center of outrageous controversies (like Ginsburg) will be shown the door. And that will be to the health of the country.


What's Your Opinion?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Leo X. Robertson

News of my latest publications, events, and episodes of the Losing the Plot podcast!

Sherry Parnell

Author of "Let the Willows Weep"

Emerald Book Reviews

Book Reviews and Promotion Services

YA Chit Chat

The Ponderings of YA author J. Keller Ford

madchen863's Blog

Planet Earth: home of life


Radio for the Awake and Aware


Soweto isiPantsula Crew + Management


Just a redheaded woman who is obsessed with books

Mercedes Prunty Author

The Walking Mumbie

InsureZero Blog

All you need to know about Insurance

Creative Ideas for Starving Artists

Brain juice that revives and refreshes

Real Science

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" - Richard Feynman

Marsha Ingrao

Traveling & Blogging Near and Far

Victoria (V.E.) Schwab

"You can't get a cup of tea big enough or a book long enough to suit me." ~C.S. Lewis

Darlene Foster's Blog

dreamer of dreams, teller of tales

All About Writing and more

Advice, challenges, poetry and prose

Tapestry ~ Treasures

My life is but a weaving between the Lord and me!

Sue Vincent's Daily Echo

Echoes of Life, Love and Laughter


Everything Historical And Much More...

%d bloggers like this: