MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Court Packing’

Court Packing? Jurisdiction Stripping? No! Optimize Quality

Posted by M. C. on December 16, 2024

Design quality into judicial processes, get informed when appointing judges, and summarily impeach judges who fail to support the Constitution.

By James Anthony

Progressives want to advance their agenda by remaking courts:

  • Senator Sheldon Whitehouse sponsored and the current senate’s judiciary committee passed a bill that would create a process to solicit ethics complaints against supreme court justices, and use inferior courts to investigate the complaints.
  • Current president Joe Biden and vice president Kamela Harris called for term-limiting justices by only letting them hear appeals for 18 years.
  • Senator Ron Wyden introduced a bill that would add 6 justices in 12 years, block justices from using their power to offset congresses unless two thirds of justices agree, require justices to submit to IRS audit and publication of their tax returns, and let litigants motion for recusals and require that justices reply in writing.
  • Harris called for Democratic senators to enact such bills by bypassing the 60-vote filibuster cloture rule. (Filibuster cloture is unconstitutional, but Harris wanted to end it in order to then defy the Constitution.)
  • Now senators Peter Welch and Joe Manchin have introduced a constitutional amendment to freeze the number of supreme court justices at nine, limit terms to 18 years, and override appointment of chief justices by promoting the most-senior justice.

Conservatives want to advance their agenda by limiting courts:

  • Jurisdiction stripping has been advocated to legislatively remove some judicial power, for example over immigration and marriage.

Politicians are playing politics here and there, not protecting individuals’ rights overall.

Like the Constitution defines processes to secure individuals’ life, liberty, and property, judicial regulations should got the next step deeper here by defining processes to speedily produce just opinions.

Word processors, databases, clerks, friends of the court, and legacy practices produce overwhelming discovery, complex argumentation, long delays, and severely-throttled throughput. Critical legal cases becomes like Omnibus bills—complicated by design, and unjust. Bundling the government censorship of social media case Missouri v. Biden into its current ponderous mass has denied swift relief to each litigant and has victimized millions more.

Under current legislative controls, the judicial process strips litigants of property and unduly deprives them of rights for years. Many others can’t get any justice at all.

Justice—or injustice—is an emergent property of a system that encompasses all of society.

Justice needs to begin with generally good behavior, and with limited, clear, just statutes. Just and equitable remedies require good investigations, prosecutions, defenses, judges, and juries.

Justice is produced under government monopoly control currently. There are no customers supervising producers of justice’s components and selecting for ever-better producers.

Instead, justice producers need to be disciplined internally, by having government people use their offsetting powers to make exceptions and regulations and constitute inferior tribunals, to appoint, and to summarily impeach.

Justice is produced, or not produced, like any product: by completing projects, and on each project applying scarce resources to optimally trade off between time, cost, and quality.

Justice would be produced better by making and utilizing the following regulations:

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The New Deal’s Dark Underbelly (Book Review)

Posted by M. C. on May 23, 2024

After Roosevelt secured reelection in 1936, the emboldened president made mistakes. The most well-remembered was his attempt to add six additional justices to the Supreme Court. Opponents of FDR’s heavy handedness, including the National Committee to Uphold Constitutional Governance (NCUCG), played a key role in defeating the Court Packing Scheme.

Marcus M. Witcher

When I arrived at the University of Alabama almost a decade ago to begin graduate school and met the historian David Beito (who would become the co-advisor on my dissertation), he was just beginning a project on Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s disregard for Americans’ civil liberties. Most critics of FDR point to Executive Order 9066 which forced 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps—around two-thirds of which were in fact American citizens—as an anomaly of his otherwise solid record on civil liberties. In The New Deal’s War on the Bill of Rights, however, Beito goes beyond internment and challenges these notions. Through detailed archival research, he has penned one of the most damning scholarly histories of Roosevelt to date.

The Roosevelt consensus among historians, to the extent that it ever existed, has been unraveling for some time. Free market critics such as Robert Higgs, Burt Folsom, Jim Powell, Thomas Fleming, and Amity Shlaes have rightly condemned Roosevelt’s response to the Great Depression and his inclination to use the coercive power of the state to impose his policy prescriptions—often with undesirable results and unintended consequences. But there is also an emerging group of historians on the left—Richard Rothstein, Ira Katznelson, Linda Gordon, and Richard Reeves, among others—who criticize FDR for reinforcing the white male breadwinner home, for creating organizations such as the Federal Housing Administration that helped segregate America through redlining, for not supporting anti-lynching legislation, for not ensuring that the New Deal programs benefited minorities on a more equal basis, and for the internment of Japanese Americans. Even David Kennedy’s comprehensive history of the period is critical of Roosevelt on some margins.

Although some historians have criticized FDR, most of the historiography of Roosevelt gives him a pass on the abuse of civil liberties during his administrations and hails him as a champion of democracy often citing his soaring rhetoric and the Four Freedoms. In reality, as Beito demonstrates, Roosevelt’s liberalism did not lead him to care about Americans’ civil liberties and he violated the Bill of Rights time and time again while in office. Further, historians generally treat the internment of people of Japanese ancestry as an exception to Roosevelt’s solid record on civil rights and they generally excuse the president’s actions and cast blame on those who carried out the relocation and internment—such as General John L. Dewitt. Beito set out to prove that Roosevelt’s decision to intern Japanese Americans was consistent with his general disregard for the Bill of Rights.

Beito begins by chronicling the ways that FDR empowered his allies in the Senate to harass, undermine, and delegitimize political enemies and critics of the New Deal through formal investigations. According to Beito, the Black Committee—chaired by Hugo L. Black (D-AL) who was an ardent New Dealer—was used “as an instrument of political surveillance.” The committee was created to look into opponents of Roosevelt’s New Deal in 1935 at a time when many of the New Deal initiatives had suffered significant setbacks from the Supreme Court. The Roosevelt administration empowered and supported the committee’s activities. The IRS issued “a ‘general blanket order’ for access to the tax returns of potential witnesses.” Roosevelt’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) also granted “authorization to require the telegraph companies [to] comply” with Black’s requests that his committee be granted complete access to witness telegrams. Ultimately, the Black Committee succeeded in its goal to “spread the view that the main anti-New Deal organizations represented a small cabal of big business interests” and it successfully discredited opponents of the New Deal and discouraged financial contributions to FDR’s political opponents.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »