Is the Supreme Court Dysfunctional, and if So, Can It Be Repaired?

Throughout my life, I admit that I had many problems with the executive and legislative branches of our government. I’m sure I am not alone. I am a proud American who questions his government when it acts in a manner opposed to the welfare of the majority. However, prior to 1991, I was mostly confident that the judicial branch, the Supreme Court, was performing in the manner intended by our founding fathers.

Its original function was to guarantee that laws passed by the state and federal governments were in concert with the Constitution. Its secondary purpose was to guarantee equal protection under the law for both governments and individuals. It was intended to be apolitical. However, that was in 1789.

The concepts embodied in the phrase “rule of law” are both simple and complex. Its simplicity derives from the fact that the underlying notion is clear: all persons, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, economic or social status, or other group or individual characteristics, are equal in the eyes of the law. The concept, however, also requires that a complex web of laws and governmental actions come together to assure the protection of the rule of law for all.

In 1991, President George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to replace retiring Justice Thurgood Marshall. I was literally horrified as I watched the most egregious display of misogyny in our nation’s history.

Thomas was accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill. When questioned by the old, white men in the Senate, Ms. Hill was badgered and eventually became the villain. Thomas was confirmed by a vote of 52-48. The confirmation was not along party lines. Eleven Democrats agreed with 41 Republicans. He has become the most controversial member of the Court.

However, in 2018, the senate repeated its support for misogyny and confirmed an even less worthy man to a lifetime appointment.

Brett Kavanaugh was nominated by Donald Trump and hurried through the process by Moscow Mitch McConnell. Kavanaugh was charged with sexual assault by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. Once again, she was attacked by the fake Republicans in the Senate and confirmed in July of 2018. We later learned that the FBI, charged with investigating the background of nominees for the Court, failed to thoroughly vet Kavanaugh, and our nation is saddled with a beer-guzzling sexual predator for decades to come.

Moscow Mitch is responsible for making the Court dysfunctional. If you thought the Kavanaugh debacle was an embarrassment, let’s look at the story of Amy Coney Barrett.

It begins in 2016. Justice Antonin Scalia passed away suddenly. That meant there would be an empty seat on the Court nine months before the election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

President Obama followed his Constitutional obligation and nominated a well-respected man from both sides of the aisle, Merrick Garland, to fill the vacancy.

Once again Moscow Mitch refused to do his job. He created a rule, not supported by the Constitution. Moscow Mitch refused to hold hearings for Judge Garland making a unilateral decision that there should be no nomination for a Supreme Court justice during an election year. In 2017 Trump nominated a far less-qualified man, Neil Gorsuch who was confirmed along party lines, proving once and for all that the Court has become politicized. I promise that “the truth lives here,” so here is the rest of the story.

Move forward to 2020. The legendary Ruth Bader Ginsburg lost her battle with cancer a couple of months before the election. Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to fill Justice Bader’s seat. Hearings began just seven weeks before the election, in violation of Moscow Mitch’s own rule. Although Barrett received many objections based upon her extremist support of the Catholic Church, placing her personal religious beliefs ahead of the Law of the Land, she was confirmed and sworn in just one week prior to the election with a vote of 52-48. Only one Republican, Susan Collins, opposed her confirmation.

The word, my friends, is hypocrite.

The situation regarding the Supreme Court is far more serious than the corruption within the legislative branch. Without objectivity on the Court, decisions will be made based on how the issue will affect the Republican Party. The Constitution will be ignored, and democracy forgotten.

Today Moscow Mitch is opposing the confirmation of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson for one reason: she is a Black woman. His complaints are not based on facts, they are nothing more than an excuse.

Led by Moscow Mitch, our government broke our government. It can be fixed, but I’m not so sure about the Court. Lifetime appointments make no sense. Five of the six justices appointed by a Republican president are extremists who vote along party lines most of the time.

Our government will remain dysfunctional until term limits are imposed on the legislative and judicial branches.

Op-ed by James Turnage

Sources:

Supreme Court of the United States: The Court and Constitutional Interpretation
National Constitution Center: Constitution Check: Was the Supreme Court only an afterthought for the Founders? By Lyle Denniston
University of Denver: Our Founding Fathers’ Vision: An Enduring Rule of Law; by Ruth V. McGregor

Featured and Top Image by Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States Courtesy of Picryl – Public Domain License
Inset Image Courtesy of Lorie Shaull’s Flickr Page – Creative Commons License