So if Garland would agree to do his job to enforce federal code, he would shut down the protests and judges and their families could sleep at night. Instead we have this sad and dangerous spectacle of a mob trying to enforce justice when it doesn’t get the rulings it wants. And that’s not the American way.
Is it really true that the Court is "increasingly ideological"? That depends on where you sit--as you know, Noah, and as Alito pointed out in his draft, Roe v. Wade was the classic example of legislating from the bench, complete with a detailed scheme about trimesters and fetal viability that had no relation to any body of previous law, much less the Constitution. And Casey was also in this vein. Are you defining "ideological" as "unpopular among mainstream media"--do you mean something else by "ideological"? Does "ideological" mean "divisive" (i.e., inflammatory in relation to popular opinion)? Brown v. Board of Ed was divisive. The Warren Court was frequently divisive. I don't see how packing the Court or making it more vulnerable to political winds by having term limits would make it less ideological, since it would then be more dependent on the executive and legislative branches. (Also, be careful what you wish for.)
I agree with your earlier piece that it would have been convenient had the Court protected abortion up to three months, since that's what most Americans prefer (rather than Roe's six months or the Democratic Senate sans Manchin's nine months)--but where can one find the Constitutional support for it? That's the problem.
I would suggest both an 18 year term for the justices and also a law preventing the senate for not confirming a justice, just because they had the votes. For example, after two rejections, the president can pick somebody without consent. Also, perhaps a time limit on when an appointment can be made in the last year of a p[residents term such as not after election day
One thing to note is that picketing outside a judge’s home is most probably illegal:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507
So if Garland would agree to do his job to enforce federal code, he would shut down the protests and judges and their families could sleep at night. Instead we have this sad and dangerous spectacle of a mob trying to enforce justice when it doesn’t get the rulings it wants. And that’s not the American way.
Is it really true that the Court is "increasingly ideological"? That depends on where you sit--as you know, Noah, and as Alito pointed out in his draft, Roe v. Wade was the classic example of legislating from the bench, complete with a detailed scheme about trimesters and fetal viability that had no relation to any body of previous law, much less the Constitution. And Casey was also in this vein. Are you defining "ideological" as "unpopular among mainstream media"--do you mean something else by "ideological"? Does "ideological" mean "divisive" (i.e., inflammatory in relation to popular opinion)? Brown v. Board of Ed was divisive. The Warren Court was frequently divisive. I don't see how packing the Court or making it more vulnerable to political winds by having term limits would make it less ideological, since it would then be more dependent on the executive and legislative branches. (Also, be careful what you wish for.)
I agree with your earlier piece that it would have been convenient had the Court protected abortion up to three months, since that's what most Americans prefer (rather than Roe's six months or the Democratic Senate sans Manchin's nine months)--but where can one find the Constitutional support for it? That's the problem.
I would suggest both an 18 year term for the justices and also a law preventing the senate for not confirming a justice, just because they had the votes. For example, after two rejections, the president can pick somebody without consent. Also, perhaps a time limit on when an appointment can be made in the last year of a p[residents term such as not after election day