In listening to the back and forth in the discussion of the oral arguments Bostock v. Clayton County and Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC it occurred to me that over the period of the last several generations there has been an ongoing battle about the role of the Supreme Court that should be debated openly.
I think the Supreme Court should be rendering neutrally applying interpretive principles in full recognition that perfect neutrality is impossible. Simply because human beings are human beings does not mean that it is impossible to apply interpretive principles in a neutral fashion. I think that the courts should follow the law and leave the political decisions to the Congress.
Increasingly, I think it’s apparent that not everyone agrees with that role for the Supreme Court or, indeed, that justices should be bound by established law, precedent, or anything other than their own consciences.
So, here’s my question. If Supreme Court justices are to be political actors, should they be subject to the same review as other political actors? I.e. should they stand for re-election? It could be just a yes/no for retention as it is here in Illinois for judges or it could be a full-fledged election and it could be every 2, 4, 6, 8, or more years.
Should Supreme Court justices stand for election?