By Damon W. Root
Writing in The Washington
Post, Harvard Law School’s Thomas Donnelly points out that
Newt Gingrich’s
recent attacks on the judiciary “hark back to a time when
progressives were committed to curbing court power.” As
Donnelly writes:
A century ago, Theodore Roosevelt spoke to a convention assembled to revise Ohio’s constitution. Spurred by recent court decisions striking down various labor laws, Roosevelt called for reforms that would ensure that the American people had the final say over important constitutional questions. In so doing, Roosevelt attacked judicial supremacy, believing it “both absurd and degrading to make a fetish of a judge or of anyone else.”
At the center of Roosevelt’s reform agenda was a simple, albeit controversial, proposal: the recall of judicial decisions. Roosevelt summarized this by saying that, when judges decide a constitutional question, “the people should have the right to recall that decision if they think it wrong.”
Progressive era activists favored
judicial restraint because they saw the courts as a bulwark
against their various regulatory schemes. You can’t fashion a bold
new tomorrow with a pesky judge striking down your transformative
agenda, after all. So why not try to hogtie the judge? Theodore’s
distant cousin Franklin Roosevelt ran into the same problem a few
decades later when the Supreme Court began striking down portions
of his New Deal, which is why
he wanted to pack the Court with a bunch of new justices
willing to vote yea. Thankfully, even some of FDR’s most
liberal supporters
refused to go along with that authoritarian plan.
Yet Donnelly’s big takeaway point is that today’s progressives
should not be so quick to entirely reject Gingrich's war on the
courts, especially given his plan's left-wing pedigree. According
to Donnelly, maybe it’s even time to resurrect Teddy Roosevelt’s
“People’s Veto." As he writes:
For instance, such a veto could be reserved for 5 to 4 decisions of the Supreme Court on constitutional issues — in other words, decisions in which the majority is often attempting to push constitutional doctrine in a new direction. A People’s Veto would permit the public to weigh in, perhaps following a national petition drive or congressional authorization.
I suppose there are some liberals out there who would like the
chance to vote down the Court’s campaign finance ruling in
Citizens United or its Second Amendment decision in
D.C. v. Heller. But how many of those same liberals would
also like to subject the Court’s abortion decisions to the People’s
Veto? How about the Court's decisions limiting presidential power
in the war on terror? The whole point of an independent judiciary
is that it can sometimes act as a check on the tyranny of the
majority, which is precisely why Gingrich—like the Roosevelts
before him—wants to do away with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment