James M. Redwine

U.S. Supreme Court

Our Two Branch Democracy

by Leave a Comment

Photo by Peg Redwine

Pure democratic government involves direct selection of leaders by those who are led. The United States is two thirds of a democracy. The Executive Branch is elected by popular vote every four years. The House of Representatives of the Legislative Branch is elected by popular vote every two years. The Senatorial part of the Legislative Branch is elected by popular vote in staggered parts over six years. The Executive and Legislative Branches then select all members of the federal judiciary. The American public has no direct input in the selection of the Judicial Branch.

Federal judges receive life-time appointments subject only to their own choice or, extremely rarely, impeachment. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase (in 1805) was the only U.S. Supreme Court justice to have articles of impeachment brought against him; he was acquitted and continued on the court. Fifteen lower federal court judges have been impeached in American history. Eight were convicted and removed from the court. Four were acquitted and three resigned. We currently have about 1,800 federal judges including 9 Supreme Court justices.

The Judicial Branch of our government is in some ways the most powerful and in every way the least democratic branch. While we have only one President, the President may serve a maximum of eight years and must be elected by popular vote. Of course, the Electoral College is the mechanism we use, but popular vote by the electorate is still the gold standard. That is, we have the right to help choose our Executives. No so our federal judges.

In like manner, we have the right to help choose our state’s Congress people and our state’s two senators. And while there are no term limits for the Legislative Branch, if we choose, we can vote them out. Not so our federal judges.

The historical reasons for how our ideal form of a Three Equal Branch democracy became two equal branches with the Judicial Branch being outside the control of the citizens are complex and, in many ways, convoluted. For the purposes of this column, I ask for a suspension of your legitimate questions about the etiology of how we got to our current non-democratic system. I respectfully recommend an examination of the most famous and momentous U.S. Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1cranch) 137 (1803). It was the original wrongly decided case that the highly political Chief Justice John Marshall used to outfox his bitter political opponent, President Thomas Jefferson, and usurp out of whole cloth for the Supreme Court the ultimate authority to determine if an act or law was constitutional. That was the beginning of how the federal courts have placed themselves beyond the reach of the citizens and slowly but inexorably created a government that, I submit, James Madison and the other Founders would not recognize. The ideal of a living democracy based on direct citizen involvement in the selection of each of three separate and equal branches of self-government has evolved into bicameral branches of Executives and Legislators who then choose the Judicial Branch.

Most experts now believe it would take an amendment to Article III of our Constitution to return to the purity of the Founders’ vision. If so, that painful and arduous process would be preferable to the alternatives.

Judicial Proclivities

by Leave a Comment

Three of the United States Supreme Court’s own members Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor warn us the Court has appointed itself, instead of Congress or the EPA, the decision maker on climate policy. An outcome the three dissenters found frightening. See the dissenting opinion of Kagan as joined by Breyer and Sotomayor in West Virginia v. EPA decided June 30, 2022. What they meant was that the unelected Supreme Court installed the Judicial Branch as the policy maker for an issue, management of the environment, that should be within the Legislative Branch that is subject to democratic control, as the Court is not.

Most of us are unable to see the irony in our own actions. The same is true of the Supreme Court. The six-member majority of the Court couched its decision in terms of preserving policy making in Congress as opposed to unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency. But, according to the Dissent, what the Court did was simply replace the EPA with the Court as the ultimate decision maker on the broad, critical issues of environmental management.

In the similarly ironical decision Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health handed down 24 June 2022, the same majority set the U.S. Supreme Court up as the final policy maker on the volatile issue of abortion by deciding Roe v. Wade must be overturned and each state should decide the issue.

The same three dissenting justices warned in Dobbs that:

“The Court reverses course today for one reason and one reason only: because the composition of this Court has changed. Stare decisis, this Court has often said, contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process by ensuring that decisions are founded in the law rather than in the proclivities of individuals. Today, the proclivities of individuals rule. The Court departs from its obligation to faithfully and impartially apply the law.”

It is not the substance of either the EPA case or the abortion case that is our concern in today’s column. Those emotional issues of global warming and human reproduction are just too volatile and complicated to be adequately discussed in one short column. Instead, what I am struck by is the obtuseness of nine unelected, life-tenured people who arrogate themselves as final arbiters of issues so vital to the lives of 330 million Americans.  Perhaps the Supreme Court has finally brought in to focus that the justices are merely politicians on a micro scale. What I wish to discuss is how we might retain our three equal branches of government through a macro democratic process.

Does any rational observer of the Court deny the justices are simply politicians who wear black dresses and pretend to be apolitical? The justices are not to blame. If you, Gentle Reader, or I were placed by Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation on the Court, we would take our prejudices and “proclivities” with us. The problem lies not with the members of the Court but with the undemocratic way they are selected coupled with their life-time tenure. It is our Court and our Constitution and we should change both.

We have amended our Constitution 27 times. We should do so again. I suggest that the members of the U.S. Supreme Court and all federal judges be elected in a non-partisan election for one 10-year term. Once their term is honorably served, we should pay them their full salary for life and they should never serve as a judge again. The impeachment process should remain an option in case we make a mistake.

In summary, federal judges are no better or no worse than the rest of us. They are human, they have “proclivities”, they are politicians. We should drop the façade of “philosopher kings” and have our federal judges recognized as a full-fledged branch of our democracy as selected via a democratic process.

♪ All The Grass Is Green ♪

by Leave a Comment

Photo by Peg Redwine

I like brown grass. It matches the unfallen brown leaves I don’t have to rake and the brown stagnant water in the pond that hides my fish from the ravenous blue heron. Also, brown grass does not engender chiggers. Ah, chiggers, Mother Nature’s reminder that we humans are, in fact, at the top of the insect world’s food pyramid. Here’s how the internet waxes eloquent about chiggers:

“They bite their human host (who invited them?) and by embedding their mouthparts into the skin

cause intense irritation with intense itching.” Ugh!

The omniscient internet says chiggers prosper in grasslands, like the Osage County, Oklahoma prairie, and are most numerous in early summer when grass is heaviest; you know, like now! I have been doing my own field work on chiggers since the mowing season has returned. I can attest that for once the internet is correct; chiggers proliferate in tall green grasses.

My ankles still display chigger bites from those halcyon childhood summer days when I would gayly traipse through the green prairie grasses in short pants and bare feet while the chiggers were rejoicing at the opportunity to embed their heads permanently into my skin and scar me physically and mentally for eternity. Surely someone should have kept me out of tall green grass for the first ten years of my life and surely I should not be communicating with chiggers now as beautiful dry brown grass turns into tall green chigger heaven.

Unfortunately, I cannot convince Peg our yard looks just fine with waving green stems interspersed with golden dandelions. She insists that I do battle with the vegetation that is being protected by battalions of chiggers as ferocious as Ukrainian freedom fighters. I don’t get it. Peg plants countless flowers and even decorative grasses while she insists I attack our yard with a smoking, noisy grass decapitating Kubota dragon. No wonder the chiggers launch counter attacks. I say let bygones be bygones. I’ll forgive those childhood chiggers if today’s marauders will leave me alone. But how can they if Peg demands I destroy their homes?

I say the blames for my chigger discomfort falls squarely upon Peg’s pathological need to impress the neighbors. Neighbors? We live in the country! Our cabin is a quarter of a mile from the main county road. Nobody ever sees our yard unless you count FedEx and UPS drivers who deliver Peg’s ever regenerating plants for her to plant and the chiggers to nest in. If I did not mow the yard all summer no one would see or care; well, except Peg of course.

But the real problem is not Peg. The real problem is the United States government that can send out trillions of borrowed dollars to encourage people not to work and trillions of borrowed dollars to help Ukrainians blow up Russian tanks, planes and ships but cannot spend a Depression Era dime to eliminate chiggers. It is time we returned to those thrilling days of yesteryear when instead of spreading armaments we spread insect killer, not DDT, of course.

Let’s hear it for dead chiggers and live, itch-free people. That’s a better campaign slogan than “Ban the U.S. Supreme Court” or “Raise a statue to Sammy Alito.” Well, excuse me a moment. I’ve got to go get Peg to type up this column for the paper and I can see out the window she is gleefully planting even more insect habitat.

Political Winds Should Shift

by 1 Comment

President Biden has promised to nominate an African American woman to replace retiring Associate Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The U.S. Supreme Court is generally accepted as having a liberal wing: Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan; and a conservative wing, Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. Chief Justice John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh vacillate but tend toward the conservative side.

The liberals were nominated by liberal Democrat presidents and the conservatives and semi-conservatives were nominated by conservative Republican presidents. Each American president was elected by majority popular vote and the Electoral College. The philosophies and political positions of each president were well known to the electorate beforehand via contested campaigns. Most voters are aware the members of the Supreme Court, and all other federal judges, are nominated by whoever the president in office is whenever there is a vacancy on a federal court or when a newly created court needs a judge.

But whereas our presidents, due to the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, may serve only two, four-year terms, Article III section one of the Constitution provides federal judges … “[s]hall hold office during good behavior.” Although it has never been tested, this provision has normally been viewed as providing life-time tenure for federal judges. And since the U.S. Supreme Court under the guidance of Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803 took for itself the power to determine what our Constitution means, if the issue arises the members of the Supreme Court will themselves decide if they should have life-time jobs. See Marbury vs. Madison (1803), 5 U.S. 137.

Therefore, the Constitution might have to be amended to set term limits for federal judges. However, we have amended our founding document twenty-seven times already so we could do so again. An amendment takes a vote by 2/3 of each body of Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the states. That is how women finally got the right to vote and we all got numerous other rights such as Freedom of Speech.

The debate over whether Supreme Court justices are political is vacuous. They are chosen via a political process. They represent a third branch of our political system. We casually identify the justices as liberals or conservative or swing votes. The Supreme Court is a political creation and remains a political part of our democracy, by design. The issue we should be discussing is what is good for America and the answer is limited terms for federal judges. If a president can be elected because of her or his policies then replaced no later than eight years later by someone with different views and a different background, so should courts have their particular perspectives and prejudices evolve every few years. We should not have to wait for Mother Nature to get new and diverse views from justices and other federal judges.

Judges, just like every other human, have prejudices and political leanings. That is not only to be expected but should be celebrated in our democracy. The fact, and it is a fact, that every judge brings her or his background to the Bench should not be news. However, America needs to protect itself from entrenched partisan views being cast in biological stone. A ten-year term for all federal judges is 25% longer than a president’s maximum allotment. Ten years is plenty and if we provide a life-time pension for ex-judges as is already set out in 28 U.S. Code §294 we should have no problem getting qualified judges to serve.

A Limited Tenure

by Leave a Comment

President Biden has announced his intention to nominate an African American woman for the Senate to advise and consent for service on the United States Supreme Court. At the risk of being embroiled in a Whoopi Goldberg “Jewish is not a race issue type of discussion”, I suggest neither race nor gender is the issue for whomever is nominated.  Politics is always what membership on the Supreme Court is about.

From the highly political John Marshall (years on Court 1801-1835) to the highly political Ruth Bader Ginsberg (years on Court 1998-2020) the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have often worn their politics on the sleeves of their robes. Marshall was nominated by President John Adams. Ginsberg was nominated by President Bill Clinton. Americans who agreed with Adams’ political positions generally agreed with Marshall’s decisions and those who leaned in Clinton’s policy directions championed Ginsberg’s. We should not be surprised if a president nominates someone whose political tendencies match the president’s. It is not a justice’s race or gender that matters; it is their philosophies.

Sometimes when a president, liberal or conservative, chooses a justice, that justice turns out on the opposite end from the president’s philosophy. President Eisenhower, a conservative, chose Earl Warren (years on Court 1953-1969) who led a liberal revolution from his position as Chief Justice. And President George H.W. Bush nominated the African American Clarence Thomas to the Bench; Black Clarence Thomas may be to the right of former slave owner Roger Brooke Taney (years on Court 1836-1864) who decided the Dred Scott case. Although it is not likely Thomas would have agreed with that particular decision.

Supreme Court justices are just like the rest of us. We carry our beliefs and prejudices throughout our lives. They change from time to time and sometimes we can overcome them. But the U.S. Supreme Court is just another political branch of our three-branch political democracy. Politicians are placed on the Court by politicians that we elect. As Plato might have said, “Only the naïve believe otherwise.”

Instead of our long-time national self-delusion that the Supreme Court is not a political force, we should acknowledge that the justices are just humans and accept reality. The best we can hope for is term limits instead of a life-time appointment. I suggest one ten-year term would be about right.

Football vs. Politics

by Leave a Comment

Democracy is messy but usually bloodless. Football is sweaty and sometimes painful. Football teams choose representative colors such as black and orange or cream and crimson. American politics are red versus blue. Football teams are led by coaches and financed by taxpayers or fat cats. Political parties are led by politicians and financed by drips and drabs via the internet or fat cats. Football teams have a few stars supported by several Sherpas. I was happy to be one of the Sherpas on the Pawhuska, Oklahoma high school Huskies football team a while ago and enjoyed every minute of it, except for wind sprints of course. I am still enjoying supporting the Huskies team which is undefeated and on their way to what I hope will be Pawhuska’s first state championship in football.

Political parties have a few stars supported by, usually, faceless minions. Football teams have one mission, to win, whoever the opponent is. Political parties believe their mission is to provide better government than competing political parties would provide. I will leave it up to you, Gentle Reader, if you believe any political party manages to achieve this goal.

Both football teams and political parties are governed by rules of procedure and conduct. With football teams a conference sets the standards and with political parties governments from the local level on up to the top have a hand in determining policy and ultimate victory. Football games are controlled by officials on the field who can enforce the rules. Their rulings are immediate and not subject to appeal but some can be reviewed. Albeit the final ruling, in effect, is made by the same people who made the initial one. Political races are governed by laws and can be subject to recount, review, repeal and reversal. Football fans sometimes must just grimace and bear a referee’s egregious error, such as giving one team an extra down as in the 1990 Colorado v. Missouri game. Of course, the problem with any attempted remedy in football is it would be impossible to completely and fairly recreate the original game circumstance. On the other hand there is the benefit that, other than endless conversations over beer, the calls at football games are final. But political races such as Bush v. Gore in 2000 may end up in the U.S. Supreme Court and may never be universally accepted as final.

As for me, I am currently marveling how my alma mater, Indiana University, can be undefeated in football after many years of wandering in the football wilderness. This column was written before Michigan v. I.U. upcoming on November 7, 2020, so I am hopeful it remains valid when you read this. And I am chagrined that Oklahoma State University where I started college could have lost to Texas last Saturday. I want a recount! I know I personally saw several blown calls that might have changed the score of the Cowboy game.

Regardless, what I have decided after suffering through the entire 2020 political season and cheering (or moaning) my way along the football season is that the temporary pains that I experienced playing football pale in the excruciation caused by the clanging brass of competing political parties and noxious news anchors. I am thankful for football and am past caring about the motes in the eyes of those who do not see eye to eye with me on politics.