- Reaction score
- 8,198
- Points
- 1,160
This arises from the current US discussion about the need to replace Justice Kennedy - but some of the concerns apply to our Americanized Supreme Court, although we have fewer Party issues. On the other hand, law schools are law schools.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/06/what-the-anthony-kennedy-backlash-says-about-trumps-critics/
Can people learn to live with their losses? Or is every decision so fraught that revolution is the only recourse?
That this is a terrible way to select a judiciary should be obvious to all, but the solution is less straightforward. Several proposals have been put forward in recent years, by liberals and conservatives alike, for making the confirmation process less gladiatorial. But that is a sticking plaster. Americans have to ask themselves a more fundamental question: What do they want from their Supreme Court? If the answer is a Kritarchy, a supreme parliament of nine that sits above the other two branches of government, then they will have to accept that each resignation from the Supreme Court has the potential to tip the balance of this judicial legislature in favour of the other side. They will also have to accept the strident, personal and poisonous confirmation process that comes with it.
If, however, they want a court rather than a monarchy chosen from the Harvard Alumni Association, they will have to accept responsibility for making those decisions which they have become content to let the Court handle. That means rehabilitating faith in democratic choice and respect for its outcomes, however dismaying they might be.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/06/what-the-anthony-kennedy-backlash-says-about-trumps-critics/
Can people learn to live with their losses? Or is every decision so fraught that revolution is the only recourse?