There's an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal that makes some suggestions on how to reign in the Supreme Court. Interesing read, though I think it might be a little oversimplified, but I'm not sure.

Here's a link to the article.

Aside from the obvious failure to suggest of making AndreaW the next Supreme Court justice, what do you think of his suggestions to "fix" the Court?

Maybe I am just not bright enough to figure it out, but how would appointing new members to the court every 12 years make things LESS political?

Curious, when I pull up the article some bearded fellow is credited as "Susan Etheridge." Really??????? Is Susan now a boy's name too? When did that happen?

JAS

I know. I kind of felt the same thing. On the one hand, I like the way he looks at it as a super-Senate. But on the other hand, I don't think the solutions are that thought out.

Well, at first glance, I have to take issue with his premise that the supreme court is out of control because they overturn 10 state laws per year in the last 50 years as opposed to 4 per year at the time of the Civil War. Perhaps he should study a bit and learn that, amazingly enough, we now have more states (to make more laws) as well as more people (demanding more laws). A juvenile mistake for an important newspaper. Of course, his mistake may be due to relying on a Harvard law professor as a source.

Yeah, he doesn't seem to account for the fact that the growth in reversals of federal laws may also correspond to a shift towards a centralized federal government. More federal laws, more federal laws that may or may not need reversing.

Maybe the boy named Sue's real whole first name was Susan.

Definitely crack reporting. Shouldn't an editor have realized the flaw in the reporter's premise?