One of the things I cut for time was that the Founders were well aware of judicial review, but didn't include it in the Constitution. That points to them not wanting it, for fear of what it could become. And as we can know see, they were right!
They were smart dudes. They didn't foresee everything, but the Constitution stands as an amazing collection of wisdom for the time. Of course, the original sin of slavery was baked right in, and rather than idolizing these dudes, I like to focus on their farsightedness where they were able to forge agreements. And: what foresight!
I'm probably less-fond of them then you are, but one thing I think they got right was accepting that society changes and the Constitution needs to change with it. They suggested we revisit it every 20 years, which was a great idea we just decided not to do. (lol)
Truth be told, I am fond of very few humans. I'm into ideas. The founders and framers had some great ones! They had some awful ones too, and that's all right. Everyone has awful ideas.
Good article overall! I do wonder what would happen if instead of SCOTUS being appointed, we the people elected 13 term-limited justices from the pool of 179 circuit judges, one for each circuit, and allowed 55% of Congress to veto any ruling. The originalists can still have their law experts on the bench, but we get our votes much more involved in the process as we do in some towns. But I like the idea of stripping out judicial review more.
"I do wonder what would happen if instead of SCOTUS being appointed, we the people elected 13 term-limited justices..."
This actually isn't that farfetched, as it's what we did with Senators! Until the 17th Amendment, Senators were appointed, similar to SC Justices. Now, we vote for them. It'd be hard to get an amendment through, but there's strong precedent for this idea.
I must say I got the idea from Bernie Sanders in 2020, but he proposed rotating them in and out (which requires either a constant cycle of impeachments or a constitutional amendment), whereas some local governments (plus 38 states!) elect or re-elect their judges.
There's actually an interesting interpretation of the Constitution that says judges must serve "on the judiciary" for life. It never specifies they must be on the Supreme Court. So, Congress could pass a law saying you get 5-10 years on the SC before being rotated down to a lower place. Just something to consider.
This was great analysis Joe! You provided a unique take amongst all the other articles out there about Alito and Thomas, who disgust me to no end. I enjoyed learning about how other countries' judicial branches operate, the Japanese court in particular. Thanks for educating this Yank!
Thank you so much for your kind words! I'm I could provide analysis that doesn't exist elsewhere. That's always been my goal, to bring new ideas to the table that don't exist in traditional media.
Well put. It certainly does not seem as though there's the 3-way balance the founders intended. We are way, way too heavy on the judiciary today.
One of the things I cut for time was that the Founders were well aware of judicial review, but didn't include it in the Constitution. That points to them not wanting it, for fear of what it could become. And as we can know see, they were right!
They were smart dudes. They didn't foresee everything, but the Constitution stands as an amazing collection of wisdom for the time. Of course, the original sin of slavery was baked right in, and rather than idolizing these dudes, I like to focus on their farsightedness where they were able to forge agreements. And: what foresight!
I'm probably less-fond of them then you are, but one thing I think they got right was accepting that society changes and the Constitution needs to change with it. They suggested we revisit it every 20 years, which was a great idea we just decided not to do. (lol)
Truth be told, I am fond of very few humans. I'm into ideas. The founders and framers had some great ones! They had some awful ones too, and that's all right. Everyone has awful ideas.
Good article overall! I do wonder what would happen if instead of SCOTUS being appointed, we the people elected 13 term-limited justices from the pool of 179 circuit judges, one for each circuit, and allowed 55% of Congress to veto any ruling. The originalists can still have their law experts on the bench, but we get our votes much more involved in the process as we do in some towns. But I like the idea of stripping out judicial review more.
"I do wonder what would happen if instead of SCOTUS being appointed, we the people elected 13 term-limited justices..."
This actually isn't that farfetched, as it's what we did with Senators! Until the 17th Amendment, Senators were appointed, similar to SC Justices. Now, we vote for them. It'd be hard to get an amendment through, but there's strong precedent for this idea.
I must say I got the idea from Bernie Sanders in 2020, but he proposed rotating them in and out (which requires either a constant cycle of impeachments or a constitutional amendment), whereas some local governments (plus 38 states!) elect or re-elect their judges.
There's actually an interesting interpretation of the Constitution that says judges must serve "on the judiciary" for life. It never specifies they must be on the Supreme Court. So, Congress could pass a law saying you get 5-10 years on the SC before being rotated down to a lower place. Just something to consider.
This was great analysis Joe! You provided a unique take amongst all the other articles out there about Alito and Thomas, who disgust me to no end. I enjoyed learning about how other countries' judicial branches operate, the Japanese court in particular. Thanks for educating this Yank!
Thank you so much for your kind words! I'm I could provide analysis that doesn't exist elsewhere. That's always been my goal, to bring new ideas to the table that don't exist in traditional media.