Editorial Opinion

One of the the more important reasons I have heard for voting for one or other candidate, although usually from conservatives, is to the matter of appointment of Supreme Court justices.

Members of the United States Senate may serve an unlimited number of six-year terms. Members of the House of Representatives may serve an unlimited number of two-year terms. This means that there is a theoretical opportunity for the electorate to remove any member of the house each two years, and any senator each 6 years. I say theoretical as gerrymandering is rife. Which does allow a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries.

The Constitution states that Justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior." This means that the Justices hold office as long as they choose and can only be removed from office by impeachment.

The issue: If a President was to appoint, and the senate to confirm, an "activist" judge, this judge could influence the interpretation of constitutional issue in the USA for a lengthy period.

I have heard concern that the 2nd amendment might be repealed, or that Christians might be denied freedom of worship if liberal judges were appointed. I have heard concern that heard that Roe vs. Wade, and the right of LGBT marriage might be denied if conservative judges were appointed. What I objectively can hear are genuine and legitimate concerns by the groups of people affected. Although it I do find the level of concern to be very slanted to the specific issues of different groups.

I am not going to comment here on how "real" these concerns practically are.

I will research this matter further for it falls into the category of what might happen. Which is a category of future events, easily influenced by fear, that is near impossible to prove or disprove!

Facts: In U.S. history, one justice was impeached, but not convicted, and one justice resigned under the threat of impeachment.
Facts: Of the 159 nominations for Supreme Court Justice that presidents have submitted to the Senate for confirmation, the Senate has rejected only 12. The first rejection was George Washington's nomination of John Rutledge to be Chief Justice in 1795; the last, Ronald Reagan’s nominee for Associate Justice, Robert H. Bork, in 1987.
Facts: I suggest a read of the following information on what is required to change our constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I have been told that the Chief Justices could vote politically. I am the first to agree that there have been activist justices who have voted politically. But I hesitate to allege that our Supreme Court Justices will be materially influenced by political thinking. The constitution can not be changed, but was designed to be amended by amendments. See above for the process of doing this, and the amendments made to date. I suggest we are often too quick to impugn people and motives we do not know that much about.

I am reminded of Chief Justice who broke ranks with the "expected" politically conservative position and ruled in favor of Obamacare. I see no evidence that he allowed his conservative politics to affect his interpretation of the constitution.

https://www.thenation.com/article/obamacare-upheld-how-and-why-did-justice-roberts-do-it/

I am going to read a recent book by Justice Stephen Breyer; The Court and the World. I heard Justice Breyer being interviewed on Sunday and was surprised to hear that his biggest concerns for the Supreme Court in the next 7 years were; America's role in International matters; and the complexity of information privacy laws in the new era of social media.

I hope that our next President will include these two matters as they consider their criteria for any Supreme Court nominations.