Earlier this week Convention of States co-founder Mark Meckler wrote that we need to "change our perspective on the Court."
The battles over SCOTUS nominations prove that Court appointments are more about politics than anything else. Both sides of the aisle understand that the Court holds massive amounts of power, and both sides want "their guy (or gal)" to hold that power.
The day after Mark published his article, Chief Justice John Roberts voiced a similar concern:
"It is a real danger that the partisan hostility that people see in the political branches will affect the nonpartisan activity of the judicial branch. It is very difficult, I think, for a member of the public to look at what goes on in confirmation hearings these days, which is a very sharp conflict in political terms between Democrats and Republicans, and not think that the person who comes out of that process must similarly share that partisan view of public issues and public life."
Judge Roberts would never admit this, but the only way to remove the partisanship from the Court is to limit the power of the Court altogether. And the only way to do that is via an Article V Convention of States.
A Convention of States can propose constitutional amendments that reduce the ever-expanding power of nine non-elected judges. These amendments can include term limits on judges and a mechanism with which states can challenge court decisions.
If the Court's power is limited, the American people -- citizens and Congressmen alike -- will be far less concerned about which president nominates which justice. The judges will be free to rule in their limited capacity without the pressures of dictating policy for the entire country.
SCOTUS will continue to be a problem until the states and the people utilize the solution as big as the problem: an Article V Convention of States.
