CENTER FOR ETHICS AND THE RULE OF LAW​

Updating the Supreme Court for the demands of a two-party system

Share this Post

Related posts

Microphones prepared for the press conference and mic flags displaying fake news logos: disinformation and propaganda concept, blank copy space

How the Trump administration is weaponizing the Communications Act of 1934

The Supreme Court has seen renewed scrutiny in recent years over allegations that its decisions are unacceptably partisan. In a new piece for the Brennan Center for Justice, CERL Affiliated Faculty Member Kermit Roosevelt reflects on the varying conceptions of SCOTUS justices as heroes or villains, and notes that an integrated and historical approach to the institution shows that they are neither, but that the two-party system does not align with the Framers’ conception of the Supreme Court. Professor Roosevelt, citing his new book, argues that 18-year term limits would allow each president to appoint two justices in a four-year term, making the court more aligned with democratic will; in fact, some of its best decisions historically have come when its political makeup aligned with that of recent presidencies.

Kermit Roosevelt is the David Berger Professor for the Administration of Justice at Penn Carey Law School. He is also a member of CERL’s Affiliated Faculty. Read his bio here.

The views expressed here are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of any organization or university.

Mailing List

Submissions

Submissions to The Rule of Law Post. Please refer to CERL’s submission guidelines for additional details on the blog post format. Should your submission be accepted, we ask that you please complete the Agreement to Transfer Copyright.

Please upload text in one document under 6 mb. Preferred format as a simple text file (.txt).

Share Updating the Supreme Court for the demands of a two-party system on:

LinkedIn
Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
Email
Print
Updating the Supreme Court for the demands of a two-party system