WSJ slams Wyden’s political court scheme

By Taxpayers Association of Oregon
OregonWatchdog.com

The nation’s largest subscription newspaper Editorial Board, the Wall Street Journal, blasted Oregon U.S. Senator Ron Wyden’s plan to remake the United States Supreme Court into a political weapon.

“Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden introduced a bill last month to expand the Court to 15 Justices from nine over three presidential terms. The legislation says the High Court “may invalidate an Act of Congress” only if two-thirds of participating Justices agree. So if Congress votes to censor opponents, 10 of Mr. Wyden’s 15 Justices would have to agree that this violated the First Amendment.Mr. Wyden’s bill would also require the IRS to audit and publish the Justices’ tax returns. This isn’t required of Congress or Presidents. Instead of leaving recusal decisions to individual Justices, based on criteria like financial interests, Mr. Wyden’s bill says litigants could file recusal motions, and the Justices “shall” reply in writing. Even if a Justice thinks recusal isn’t warranted, a vote by two-thirds of the Court could force him or her off the case. This would invite political jockeying to flip outcomes by disqualifying Justices on the other side.”

The Editorial Board also criticized other court political re-vamping schemes:

“A bill by Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, which passed the Judiciary Committee last year, features a similar recusal idea. It would solicit public “complaints” about the Justices, which would be investigated by panels of chief judges from the lower appellate courts. A panel could “take sworn testimony” and “issue subpoenas.” This is a recipe for partisan warfare.Then there’s Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris’s call for term limits. The Constitution says Supreme Court Justices have life tenure. The most aggressive proponents of term limits say Congress could create a new office of “Senior Justice,” which would automatically apply after 18 years of regular service. The idea is to strip Justices of the ability to hear appeals, while pretending they retain their offices. It’s unconstitutional, which isn’t to say Democrats won’t try it anyway in a statute.”