< PREVIOUS ] [ 1991 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
In the wake of the Clarence Thomas hearings, conventional wisdom holds that there has to be a better way of handling such matters.
I disagree. Who could imagine more insight into American democracy than last week's excitement? Last-minute leaks, bare-knuckle politics, pressure groups, allegations without evidence, cynical manipulation, grandstanding, gross invasions of privacy -- all were on shameless display.
Otto von Bismark, the German chancellor not known for his democratic sentiments, observed that there are two things the public should never see being made: legislation and sausages. He doubtless would have agreed about judges.
But since there is a public demand for an improved method of engaging federal judges, a spirit of civic obligation compels me to put forth alternatives:
· The Purity Quest. The Permanent Records of all Americans will be scanned by computer to find self-righteous straight-A prigs who never told or laughed at an inappropriate joke, who always paid bills on time, who never offended anyone.
This has possibilities, but unfortunately, the entire stock of correct candidates was exhausted with David Souter.
· Elect judges. In every platform, the
Republicans promise to appoint judges sworn to overturn Roe
v. Wade. As Mr. Dooley noted a century ago, th' supreme
coort follows th' iliction returns.
Why not cut out the
middle man, and let us vote directly on judges?
Critics will say that elections are appalling carnivals of overnight polls, sound bites and spin doctors, but so are Judiciary Committee hearings. There is also the question of campaign contributions -- a Keating Five on the Supreme Court would be a solid majority, instead of merely an influential bloc.
· The Colorado System. Twenty-five years ago, the problems associated with electing judges led Colorado to adopt a novel way of appointing judges.
On the federal level, it would work like this. A committee of prominent lawyers and wealthy, influential citizens (the U.S. Supreme Court Nominating Commission) would give President Bush a list of three acceptable nominees. Without further ado, he would name one, and every six years, we'd get to vote on the judge's retention.
The judge would appoint all directors of the North American Water Conservancy District, which could levy taxes, build dams and hustle subsidies. This exercise in taxation without representation might stand as an example to those nations which are trying to become democratic.
· Swap the Senate and the Supreme Court. First note how many people want the courts to settle legislative questions like redistricting, abortion, etc. Then note how senators acted as judges, to determine whether Hill or Thomas was telling the truth. Everyone would be happier if we had a 100-member Supreme Court and a nine-member Senate.
Some might object that this new Senate would hardly be representative, but consider the facts. About 80 percent of the Senate is millionaires; the justices aren't rich. Only 2 percent of the Senate is female, as compared to 14 percent of the Supreme Court. The Court is 14 percent African-American; the Senate is 0 percent. Supreme Court justices get lifetime appointments, but when was the last time an incumbent senator lost a re-election bid?
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1991 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >