ShareThis Page
Peter Morici: Better ways to appoint Supreme Court justices |
Featured Commentary

Peter Morici: Better ways to appoint Supreme Court justices

Peter Morici
| Wednesday, January 2, 2019 7:00 p.m
Brett Kavanaugh at his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing in Washington Sept. 4.

How about this new year’s resolution for Congress: find a better way to appoint Supreme Court justices.

The spectacle of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings — character assignation largely motivated by his fairly conservative approach to the Constitution — illustrates that Congress has made the process toxic. And, it has lost sight of what the court does, what the Congress is supposed to do and why.

Most cases before the court are not great constitutional issues but rather tough disagreements about the interpretations of federal statutes and conflicts among the federal circuits and state courts on a wide range of civil, criminal and corporate issues. Most are beyond the competency of practicing attorneys, because they tend to specialize in areas like real estate, finance, patents and others.

To deal with the broad range of issues, justices should be selected from among generalists who sit on the appellate courts and outstanding scholars with robust experience — individuals who demonstrate an unusual capacity for variety and the insight to craft durable, though not eternal, decisions.

In recent decades, presidents have shifted remarkably well in that direction — Brett Kavanaugh and Elena Kagan offer examples from the conservative and liberal camps.

When President Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren as chief justice, the court was genuinely political. He was governor of California with no judicial experience and joined three former senators and two justices who served as attorney general for the presidents who appointed them.

These days, the justices are outstanding legal scholars with a passion for fairness — but what is fair?

Those ethical and moral judgments should be made by the political branches, but since the establishment of the republic, members of Congress and presidents have been at war among themselves about states’ rights, race and civil rights. All reflecting deep divisions among Americans drawn across regional, ethnic and class lines.

The court settles issues Congress fails to resolve and conflicts among federal circuit decisions and state laws addressing these issues that impose unworkable contradictions on individuals and businesses.

Great issues like abortion, gay marriage and the latitude of regulatory agencies to implement vague statutes, where Congress has abrogated responsibility, are why we fight over who gets on the court — not judicial competence.

These days, presidents don’t send up unqualified scholars, and Supreme Court confirmations are political campaigns — so anything goes, including character assassination.

The Democrats and especially strident liberals view losing elections as the papacy would church burnings. Liberals are holy and conservatives’ are evil — the latter’s beliefs should be classified among the heresies of the vilest personalities.

Consequently, Democrats have behaved as if Donald Trump’s election was illegitimate and his Supreme Court appointees as fair target for the most false and destructive attacks.

Recognizing the inherently political role of the court and some politicians no longer feel bound in their conduct when their side loses elections, the best we can do is assign each political party an equal number of appointments. The president could alternate between consulting with the Democratic and Republican members of the Judiciary Committee much like the possession arrow in college basketball.

We simply can’t expect decent men and women to accept nominations or our republic to survive if the cynical tactics we witnessed during the Kavanaugh hearings are to keep occurring. The last time passions were this high, the Civil War resulted.

Peter Morici is an economist and business professor
at the University of Maryland.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.