I believe that Democrats may owe Gorsuch courtesy hearings. However, I don’t believe they should confirm him on two counts. Firstly, all of Trump’s nominees are suspect because Donald Trump is patently insane. His separation from objective reality is beyond troubling and has become an issue of governance and national security. Good, bad, indifferent though any individual nominee may be, they are all tainted by having been selected by a person with debilitating mental illness. The debilitating mental illness is no longer debatable given Trump’s bizarre statements and behavior in the last week. It would be better to allow Trump’s replacement to nominate, if a nomination is even required. Which brings me to my second point.
The appointment of a Supreme Court justice has become too volatile and divisive at this time in the United States. It should not be undertaken and I have a proposal for allowing a “cooling off” period. Though Gorsuch may receive the courtesy of hearings, rather than confirmation a different approach should be taken.
Republicans were happy to abdicate their responsibility with President Obama’s nominee. I believe there were even conservative arguments advanced about reducing the number of justices. Rather than the politically decisive act of appointing a justice at this time, I believe these arguments should be taken seriously and acted on.
The Constitution does not define the size of the Supreme Court. Initially, in 1789, it was six. Congress added justices as the number of judicial circuits. The court grew to seven in 1807, nine in 1837, and ten in 1863. In 1866 Congress passed an act providing for the next three judges to retire without replacment, allowing the court to return to seven members. In 1869 another act returned the number of justices to nine, where it has remained.
I believe Congress should, once again allow the court to shrink for a time. Justices dying or retiring should not be replaced until the court reaches seven and perhaps as few as five. This would allow for a “cooling” off period during this time of extremism and passionate views, allowing for the appointment of jurists to a less politicized court at a later time. This would serve both political parties and would serve the nation.
I’d be interested in hearing thoughts on this.
Submitted by Michael Pfeifer, WCD Member