A Better Way to Select SCOTUS Justices

Liberals are freaking out over President Trump’s nomination of conservative jurist Brett Kavanaugh to fill the present Supreme Court vacancy. Some liberal scholars are so drenched in hysteria that they are proposing radical maneuvers, such as increasing the number of justices to stack the court, as FDR sought to do in the 1930s.

The unhinged drama developing over the appointment of this important swing vote is prompting many to seek out a better way to select our Supreme Court justices.

Whether or not our nation takes a sharp turn to the radical left or right is dependent on one thing: the pure dumb luck of whether the Commander in Chief at the time of the vacancy is a Democrat or a Republican.

There’s an alternative path, and no, it does not involve stacking the Court.

Conservatives pine for more justices in the mold up Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas. The radical left wants nine Ruth Bader Ginsbergs. But the mushy middle is quite content with a moderate justice such as Anthony Kennedy, who truly did evaluate each issue based upon its own individual merits. In today’s tribal politics, the odds of getting another Kennedy are slim to none, despite the fact that Kavanaugh once clerked for the retiring judge.

So, if balance is what most Americans want on the Court, why not create a structure that is far more likely to give us just that.

Let’s float the idea of a 28th constitutional amendment that would provide that four justices be selected by Democrats and four by Republicans, each to serve a single, staggered sixteen year term. The final swing vote could be selected by the president at that time the vacancy occurs, but would require the 60 vote majority necessary before Mitch McConnell went nuclear.

Hoping a justice you detest becomes incapacitated is hardly a worthy concept to endorse.

I’m sure many conservatives, gleeful over the Gorsuch appointment and Kavanagh nomination, want to maintain the status quo, which at this nano second in time is serving them well. But if this were a President Obama making the selection, they’d be screaming for something — anything — that could create a check on his ability to cement our nation’s future legal decisions with his liberal dogma for generations to come.

Some may consider this proposed amendment a radical idea, but I’d suggest it’s infinitely less radical than increasing the Court’s size until you achieve your desired ideological majority. It would also result in a far more mainstream Court than would otherwise come about when one president, with one philosophical bent, gets control over three or four vacancies.

Our last amendment to the constitution was a bland directive related to congressional salaries. How about making our next amendment one that impacts our republic in a vastly more significant way?

Steve Levy, former New York state assemblyman, Suffolk County executive, and candidate for governor, is now a distinguished political pundit. Levy’s commentary has been published in such media outlets as Washington Times, Washington Examiner, New York Post, Albany Times, Long Island Business News, and City & State Magazine. He hosted “The Steve Levy Radio Show” on Long Island News Radio, and is a frequent guest on high profile television and radio outlets. Few on the political scene possess Levy’s diverse background. He’s been both a legislator and executive, and served on both the state and local levels — as both a Democrat and Republican. Levy published Bias in the Media, an analysis of his own experience, after switching parties, with the media’s leftward slant. Levy is currently Executive Director of the Center for Cost Effective Government, a fiscally conservative think tank. He is also President of Common Sense Strategies, a political consulting firm. To learn more about his past work and upcoming appearances, visit www.stevelevy.info. To read more of his reports — Click Here Now.