Our disastrous SCOTUS

Supreme Court was supposed to be the “apolitical” branch of the government. The framers of the Constitution intended the Court to be insulated from the chaotic process of politics and so granted lifetime appointments. The unfortunate truth is that the apolitical firewall, if it ever existed, was breeched long ago. Other nations have rejected the fiction of an apolitical court, and instead incorporated the recognition that a human process is fraught with human frailties:

• France’s Constitutional Council has nine permanent members, of which one-third are replaced every three years by the executive branch.

• Switzerland’s top judges get six-year terms before facing reelection.

• In Germany, a committee of 12 members representing all parties in Parliament selects a nominee behind closed doors. The parties take turns in proposing candidates, a mechanism that ensures even smaller parties with as little as five percent of popular support can propose a nominee every few years, usually without facing resistance from the government. A two-thirds majority of Parliament is needed to confirm a nominee, which requires broad consensus between parties.

Absent a Constitutional Amendment, we’re stuck with this system. Allegedly, Chief Justice Roberts is concerned about the Court’s image and legacy, but more often than not, he’s proven to be part of the problem, not part of the solution.