Skip to main content

Supreme flaws: Three ways to fix the Supreme Court

By Eric Segall, Special to CNN
updated 11:34 AM EDT, Fri September 20, 2013
The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court sit for their official photograph on October 8, 2010, at the Supreme Court. Front row, from left: Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Anthony M. Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Back row, from left: Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito Jr. and Elena Kagan. The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court sit for their official photograph on October 8, 2010, at the Supreme Court. Front row, from left: Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Anthony M. Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Back row, from left: Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito Jr. and Elena Kagan.
HIDE CAPTION
Today's Supreme Court
John G. Roberts
Antonin Scalia
Anthony M. Kennedy
Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen G. Breyer
Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
<<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>>
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Eric Segall: Life tenure allows justices to serve past the point of competence
  • Segall: Court should follow lead of many states and allow cameras in courtroom
  • The Supreme Court nomination process is a farce, he adds

Editor's note: Eric Segall is the Kathryn and Lawrence Ashe Professor of Law at Georgia State University College of Law. He has written more than 25 law review articles on the Supreme Court and the Constitution as well as numerous op-eds and essays. He is the author of "Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges." He tweets regularly at @espinsegall.

(CNN) -- Less than three months ago, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down eagerly awaited rulings on same-sex marriage, voting rights and affirmative action. Next month, the court will begin its new term and likely deal with controversial issues such as abortion, campaign finance reform and the separation of church and state.

When the court is in the middle of a term, it is easy to focus on hard legal questions, the legal views of individual justices and the consequences of landmark decisions. Now is a good time, when the court is in recess, to take a step back and look at the institution itself.

A lifetime is too long

First, our Supreme Court justices are the only judges in the world who sit on a country's highest court and have life tenure. Because the president nominates the justices and the Senate confirms them, the American people do not elect the justices and cannot vote them out of office. In light of the crucial role the court plays across the spectrum of social, legal and political issues, the question of how long our justices serve should be re-examined.

Supreme Court justices often serve more than 25 years and beyond the time they are still fit to perform their duties. For example, according to renown author David Garrow, both Justices William O. Douglas and Thurgood Marshall remained on the bench well after their skills had significantly diminished beyond the point of competence.

The usual justification for life tenure is that the justices need to be independent of the other branches of the government to adequately perform their duties. This need for independence is real and compelling, but there are other ways to achieve that goal.

Other countries use fixed terms, retirement ages or a combination of the two to achieve the necessary independence. There simply is no persuasive reason to allow governmental officials who have virtually unreviewable power to hold their offices for life.

Few witnesses to history

The second aspect of our Supreme Court that needs to be changed is the lack of television coverage of oral arguments and decision announcements. What a shame that during the last week of June when the court handed down and read from the bench numerous important decisions -- including the overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act and the formula in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act -- the American people had to hear the news indirectly from media personalities instead of the justices.

Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013): The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal over California's Proposition 8 on jurisdictional grounds. The voter-approved ballot measure barring same-sex marriage was not defended by state officials, but rather a private party. This ruling cleared the way for same-sex marriage in California to resume, but left open-ended the legal language of 35 other states barring same-sex marriage. Take a look at other important cases decided by the high court. Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013): The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal over California's Proposition 8 on jurisdictional grounds. The voter-approved ballot measure barring same-sex marriage was not defended by state officials, but rather a private party. This ruling cleared the way for same-sex marriage in California to resume, but left open-ended the legal language of 35 other states barring same-sex marriage. Take a look at other important cases decided by the high court.
Supreme Court cases that changed America
HIDE CAPTION
<<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
>
>>
Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America

Similarly in 2012, when the court held three days of oral arguments on the president's most important piece of legislation, the Affordable Care Act, the public should have been able to witness those arguments just like the lucky few who happened to be in the courtroom.

Moreover, it is close to a tragedy that future generations will have absolutely no video record of the court's arguments or decisions in these landmark cases. It would be an invaluable learning tool if young Americans today could see the oral arguments in Brown v. Board of Education or Roe v. Wade.

More than 30 state supreme courts allow cameras in the courtroom with great success. Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy have suggested that the presence of television would lead to grandstanding by lawyers and maybe even the justices themselves, but the experiences in state courts demonstrate such concerns are greatly exaggerated.

When Arkansas was considering placing cameras in the courtroom, Justice Robert L. Brown conducted a survey and found that "state supreme courts have blazed a significant technological trail. ... The public's response, according to those state supreme courts that provide those video broadcasts, border[ed] on the exuberant. . . [N]o state that currently provides video of its oral arguments cites grandstanding as a problem."

Arkansas has joined the majority of states that allow cameras in their courtrooms. There is simply no good reason for the Supreme Court not to do exactly the same thing.

A joke of a job interview

Summer Stories Wrap: U.S. Supreme Court

Finally, we have to do something about the national farce that is our Supreme Court nomination process.

The sad spectacle of senators asking questions drafted by their staffs and then allowing the nominees to duck them should give way to serious conversations about the nominees' views so that the American people can participate more fully in the confirmation process. As almost everyone now knows, the justices have enormous discretion to decide cases in accordance with their personal and political value systems.

The differences between Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg on most constitutional questions have nothing to do with legal interpretation and everything to do with their different backgrounds, experiences and values.

The Senate should do a much better job requiring nominees to answer hard questions about those values and experiences before the nominees are allowed to sit on the highest court in the land.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Eric Segall.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
updated 11:39 AM EDT, Thu October 30, 2014
Mike Downey says the Giants and the Royals both lived through long title droughts. What teams are waiting for a win?
updated 2:32 PM EDT, Thu October 30, 2014
Mel Robbins says if a man wants to talk to a woman on the street, he should follow 3 basic rules.
updated 5:03 PM EDT, Wed October 29, 2014
Peter Bergen and David Sterman say more terrorism plots are disrupted by families than by NSA surveillance.
updated 5:25 PM EDT, Wed October 29, 2014
Time magazine has clearly kicked up a hornet's nest with its downright insulting cover headlined "Rotten Apples," says Donna Brazile.
updated 4:55 PM EDT, Wed October 29, 2014
Leroy Chiao says the failure of the launch is painful but won't stop the trend toward commercializing space.
updated 7:45 AM EDT, Wed October 29, 2014
Timothy Stanley: Though Jeb Bush has something to offer, another Bush-Clinton race would be a step backward.
updated 8:37 AM EDT, Tue October 28, 2014
Errol Louis says forced to choose between narrow political advantage and the public good, the governors showed they are willing to take the easy way out over Ebola.
updated 2:03 PM EDT, Mon October 27, 2014
Eric Liu says with our family and friends and neighbors, each one of us must decide what kind of civilization we expect in the United States. It's our responsibility to set tone and standards, with our laws and norms
updated 7:45 AM EDT, Mon October 27, 2014
Sally Kohn says the UNC report highlights how some colleges exploit student athletes while offering little in return
updated 3:04 PM EDT, Sun October 26, 2014
Terrorists don't represent Islam, but Muslims must step up efforts to counter some of the bigotry within the world of Islam, says Fareed Zakaria
updated 9:02 AM EDT, Fri October 24, 2014
Scott Yates says extending Daylight Saving Time could save energy, reduce heart attacks and get you more sleep
updated 8:32 PM EDT, Sun October 26, 2014
Reza Aslan says the interplay between beliefs and actions is a lot more complicated than critics of Islam portray
updated 7:19 AM EDT, Mon October 27, 2014
Julian Zelizer says control of the Senate will be decided by a few close contests
updated 8:12 AM EDT, Fri October 24, 2014
The response of some U.S. institutions that should know better to Ebola has been anything but inspiring, writes Idris Ayodeji Bello.
updated 9:12 AM EDT, Tue October 21, 2014
Sigrid Fry-Revere says the National Organ Transplant Act has caused more Americans to die waiting for an organ than died in both World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT