Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsEveryone should read Samuel Moyn's case for Supreme Court reform
Link to tweet
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Moyn-Testimony.pdf
Political control of judiciaries is essential to all regimes and, far from being illiberal or undemocratic, is especially precious in liberal democracies.2 This political control is meaningfully exercised, not merely by appointment of judges, but also by jurisdictional channeling and definition, which has to be open to ongoing adjustment in light of experience, and to institutional experiments when the opportunities outweigh the risks. The best hope for and model of Supreme Court reform lies in the fine-tuning of jurisdiction, to limit the policymaking power it currently enjoys.
Albeit in different cases, judges themselves concur that the prior regime of judicial self-restraint except in the case of clear error or serious violation has broken down, and perhaps it was inevitable that this occur. For this reason, the fine-tuning of Supreme Court power has to come from without. And while this strategy is justifiable on its own, it is fortunate that the United States Constitution gives Congress extraordinary and uncontroversial flexibility, not merely in the design of the federal judiciary, but also in the allocation (and therefore channeling, or even deprivation) of its jurisdiction.
The problem to solve is not that the Supreme Court has lost legitimacy, understood as the current trust of enough observers, but that it thwarts the democratic authority that alone justifies our political arrangements. It is one thing to insulate and protect interpreters of our Constitution and laws from certain kinds of short-term democratic control. It is quite another to cede the last word over large parts of our national political conversation not to mention the power to edit and throw out major laws to less accountable powers and, to add insult to injury, to pretend that doing so is either mandated by our Constitution or essential to democracy.
The American higher judiciary has too much authority, allocated and arrogated, and this fact has been grievous for our national political experience. Not least, in recent decades, it has diverted collective political choices on a range of important issues, as well as the most momentous national elections, into a distorted and unhelpful contest about who will serve on judiciaries mistakenly empowered to face our dilemmas. In the most visible cases, the choices in these dilemmas are almost never constitutionally or legally compelled, which the close disagreement of our justices themselves already proves. Rather than continuing a regime of politics by means of the higher judiciary, Americans deserve a more democratic politics for themselves.
*snip*
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 655 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (11)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Everyone should read Samuel Moyn's case for Supreme Court reform (Original Post)
Nevilledog
Jul 2021
OP
hlthe2b
(102,357 posts)1. Yes. We need to strategize on this and not merely bemoan the difficulty of doing so.
druidity33
(6,446 posts)2. K&R, thank you! nt.