Well, a proposal that has something guaranteed to annoy just about everyone. According to a story in this morning's Washington Post, a bunch of "prominent law professors and jurists" have sent congressional leaders a letter proposing bold (or foolhardy) changes to the Supreme Court.

The article –-"Legal Experts Propose Limiting Justices' Powers, Terms"-- can be read at www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/22/AR2009022201863_pf.html. So let me just summarize its four highly controversial proposals.

According to the Post's Robert Barnes' paraphrase, the letter argues "there is no reason Congress should consider the operation of the high court sacrosanct." Organized by Duke University Law professor Paul D. Carrington (and signed by 33 others), the letter tries to make a distinction between "interference with the substance of the court's work" (which the signers say they oppose) and the way the court "operates."

Sent to the chairmen and ranking minority-party members of the congressional judiciary committees, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr., and Vice President Joseph Biden, the letter makes four recommendations. Included is a form of term limits-- "moving justices to senior status after 18 years on the court," Barnes writes. "The proposal says that justices now linger so long that it diminishes the likelihood that the court's decisions 'will reflect the moral and political values of the contemporary citizens they govern.'"

The group also "calls for the justice who serves as chief to be limited to seven years in the job, because it has 'extended into numerous other political, administrative and non-judicial roles calling for a measure of special accountability.'"

The third recommendation deals "with the removal of justices in failing health 'who are increasingly prone to remain in office and retain their political power even if no longer able to perform their office.'"

Fourth, and finally, there is a proposal that "would deprive the justices of one of their greatest powers," Barnes writes--"deciding which cases they hear."

The letter "envisions a 'Certiorari Division' made up of senior justices and appellate judges who would review the petitions and send 80 to 100 each year for the Supreme Court to decide, whether it wanted to or not."

Carrington told Barnes "even this group was not unanimous on any of the proposals," and that "The politics of this are very difficult." Even though none of the proposals would take effect until those already on the court are off, Carrington said he was "confident of one other thing: 'I'm sure the justices would hate it.'"

Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.

Part Three: "Making Information Technology Work for You and Unborn Babies."
Part One: Catching Up