A Call for Democratic Accountability
Introduction
The United States Supreme Court is one of the most influential institutions in the American political system. As a higher institution in the interpretation of the Constitution, the Court has the right to cancel the laws and acts of the executive branch, thereby forming a national policy and influencing the daily life of citizens (McKeever 4). Given this elemental power, the American people must reinforce the Court and act by democratic principles. However, the current structure of the Supreme Court causes specific fears about whether this institution can fulfill its assigned role.
Main body
One of the critical problems is that the judges of the Constitutional Court today are not representatives of the American people. Judges are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. However, at the same time, no requirements are put forward for these positions regarding the diversity or representation of minorities. As a result of the prolonged action of such a policy, the Court for a long time consisted mainly of white men, a small number of women and people of color, and even less representation of LGBTK+ Persons. Thus, this means that inequality is observed in the body of justice. If the judges do not sufficiently represent the country’s population, they cannot fully fulfill their duties. The views and experiences of different population segments are not considered when making decisions due to the lack of diversity.
The second significant problem in the judicial system is that the judges of the Supreme Court are appointed for life. Although they can be shifted, only with the help of a complex and rare impeachment procedure. Thus, in the sector, one can note the absence of shots that can negatively affect the operational effectiveness of the Court (Greenberg and Page 348). In addition, putting judges in such conditions they are not accountable to the people and do not depend on anyone’s opinion. Thus, one of the basic principles of a democratic society is violated, which should guarantee Checks and Balances. In addition, judges can fulfill their powers for decades, meaning their views and authority can eventually affect events in the region even after the government changes (Greenberg and Page 360). This situation ultimately can lead to a situation in which the judges’ opinion diverges from most Americans’ opinion.
In addition to the above problems, there is also a dilemma of the influence of the Court when choosing new judges. Since they can resign due to their political accessories, this causes specific fears regarding what persons will be delivered instead of them. If in the country, the President and the judge from the same party are replaced by the resignation, then the head of state will need to appoint new judges. However, this means that, most likely, the choice will be made in favor of proxies from the same batch. Thus, the whole procedure and the possibility of replacing judges are in question of the need for their existence. This can increase the degree of polarization in the Court and make this institution less accountable people of the United States.
The problems voiced above suggest how the Supreme Court can ultimately prevent its regulation in the context of the Consent of the Governed. The Court can completely ignore the desires and requests of the majority since it is not a representation of the people and is not accountable to him. In this case, some court decisions may be considered as such that contradict the people. This, in turn, will lead to the fact that the principles of democratic management and Checks and Balances systems are violated. Thus, it can be said that the Supreme Court is a minor democratic institution in the country, and this must be corrected.
The structure of the construction and formation of the Supreme Court may impede the exercise of the majority rights even in cases where the right of the minority restrains it. This is justified because the Court is not a democratic body and is not accountable to the people. In addition, judges in America have an unlimited term of their powers and a complex procedure for eliminating their posts (Greenberg and Page 348). This distinguishes this branch of the justice system and does not allow it to function fully within the state. Instead, due to numerous contradictions and inconsistencies in the system, the Court, in many cases, may become an obstacle to the rest of the government structures in fulfilling its duties (Greenberg and Page 362). Judges can make decisions influencing the lives of millions of people, not interested in the opinion of voters, which is a severe missing in this situation.
In this case, several potential reforms could be applied to correct the system’s situation. At the same time, reform should be carried out with care so as not to upset the existing balance and not introduce more misunderstandings (Pollman 237). One of the options for changes is the imposition of restrictions on the number of terms of judges that can be elected to the Supreme Court. Thus, gradually renewing the composition will be possible, and new judges will better consider the general situation without resting in their place. Thus, the Court will also be able to remain sensitive to the changing political climate.
Another option for improving the Supreme Court is to resolve issues representing certain social groups. The provision of official quotas can help significantly improve the relationship of an instance with the people so that judges consider people’s opinions. This requires increasing efforts to identify qualified candidates from insufficiently represented social and racial groups. Thus, the quality of the inverted verdicts will not suffer due to hiring random people by quota.
Another solution that can be aimed at correctly correcting the current situation is improving accountability. To do this, one can introduce obligations to broadcast court meetings so the people can control what arguments judges use to make specific decisions. Thus, it will be possible to increase the transparency of the court decisions, which will increase the people’s confidence in it (Epps and Sitaraman 401). An alternative option may be the publication of an expanded resume with a court decision and their argument. This will help to achieve the desired level of democratic processes in the system.
Nevertheless, some reasons can become a severe obstacle to the reform of the Court. One argument is that the current structure of the Court is a fundamental part of the American political system, which has been shaped over a long period and adjusted in line with changes in the country. By giving the Court independence from other branches of government and public opinion, the Court is better placed to protect the rights of minorities and ensure that the Constitution is correctly interpreted over time (Greenberg and Page 365). Restrictions on the powers of judges may interfere with the Court’s stable work and its functions’ performance.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is worth noting that the United States judicial system is quite flexible regarding civil cases. However, the Supreme Constitutional Court has shortcomings that can become a significant obstacle to achieving its fundamental goals. This is due to the problems of the irrevocability of judges and their incompatibility with popular opinion. Thus, it would be possible to achieve a better result by reforming.
References
Epps, Daniel, and Ganesh Sitaraman. “The future of Supreme Court Reform.” Harv. L. Rev. F. 134 (2020): 398. Web.
Greenberg, Edward, and Benjamin Page. The struggle for democracy, Presidential Election Edition, 13th ed. Pearson. 2020.
McKeever, Robert J. “The United States Supreme Court: a political and legal analysis.” The United States Supreme Court. Manchester University Press, 2020. Web.
Pollman, Elizabeth. “The Supreme Court and the Pro-Business Paradox.” Harv. L. Rev. 135 (2021): 220. Web.