As the ongoing debate about abortion continues to divide Americans, there is a bill currently being debated in the Ohio House which will undoubtedly only cause further controversy. Ohio lawmakers are expected to vote on the issue this Wednesday, March 30. Please read the article below which was in the Cleveland Plain Dealer on Wednesday, February 9. This article will provide you with some background before you comment on this proposed legislation.
'Heartbeat' Bill Background
What are you thoughts on this proposal? Is this unconstitutional as some have claimed? Please be respectful in commenting on others comments.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Should we limit the power of the Supreme Court? (Please respond by Friday, March 18)
The Constitution allows Supreme Court Justices to serve for life in office "under good behavior." The Founders involved both the Executive and Legislative Branches in the choosing of the justices as a mean of a check on their capability and potential to serve. It was originally questionable about what "good behavior" meant, but it is now largely defined as anything but an impeachable offense. Despite this constitutional provision, only 1 state (Rhode Island) has placed it in their own state constitution. From 1789 to 1970, justices stayed on the Supreme Court for an average of 15 years, retiring at the average age of 68; during this time, vacancies arose about every two years. From 1970 to today, justices have been serving for an average of 25 years and retiring at an average age of 78; now, vacancies typically arise only every 3+ years.
Both liberal and conservative groups have expressed dismay at different points in history at decisions made by the Supreme Court and the perceived "eliteness" of life tenure. This anger is often manifested in calls for more checks on the Supreme Court. Thomas Jefferson has questioned the power of the Court by bringing forth the notion that judicial review undermines the democratic process. FDR felt that the legislative process was threatened by the Court and proposed what became known as the "Court packing scheme."
However, on the other side, the ability to serve for life as well as to not be elected frees the Justices from common political pressures, such as deciding cases to please the public. Some believe that setting limits on time served will cause too much frequent change in the Court bringing an instability to precedent and legal interpretations.
What is the best means of ensuring that the Supreme Court remains accountable for their decisions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)