Please Prove Me Wrong...

Good evening everyone.

Please note that I am about to risk being unpopular again.

We are all likely aware of the mass shooting that happened in Buffalo earlier this week.  We have learned from the shooter's internet history that he is quite racist.  Such racism is thus thought to be the underlying motivation of his crime.

Perhaps...

There is another piece to this that badly needs attention, if only to discount the possibility.  As we look at the history of mass shootings (and we can add mass killings with an automobile), we note that the perpetrators of 122 of those shootings were men (plus two vehicular mass homicides as well).  The perpetrators in another three shootings were women.  In another two, it was a man and a woman together.

My friends, as I have pointed out in another posting from a few years ago, another question desperately demands consideration.  Maybe it is the guns.  Maybe it is not.  But if the perpetrators in over 96% of these mass homicides were men, can we PLEASE have a discussion about men's mental health?

Have a good evening.

R/SCG

An Elegant Solution...

Good evening everyone...

As the country of my birth seems to be finding yet another avenue to self-immolation, different approaches to some of the questions at hand might provide a less destructive solution.

As most of you are aware, the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of the United States is a lifetime appointment.  This also holds true for the courts at the appellate level.  The reason for this was to isolate the legal system from the ebb and flow of political discourse, freeing judges to make decisions without their jobs in mind.  As well, it allows a more measured pace in the country's legal development.

With the leaking of the draft of the Supreme Court decision that will likely overturn Roe v. Wade, the cries for term limits and court packing have crescendoed yet again.

I have a more elegant solution.  It is entirely within the letter of the Constitution as it currently stands.  It requires not a single word of new legislation.  All it requires is a commitment from the President on nominations.

I would have great respect for any POTUS who made a couple of very simple promises.

1.  No President would nominate for the Supreme Court any judge who has not been at the appellate level for at least a decade.  Given that the President is only in office for eight years, it would mean that the President would not be able to nominate the same judge both to the appellate courts and to the Supreme Court.

2.  Rather than have age or term limits, a simple practice of requiring a minimum age of 60 before the President is even willing to consider a judge to SCOTUS would limit the amount of time that judges could serve from the beginning instead of at the end.

Presidential traditions are important.  President Washington started the tradition of not serving more than two terms, a tradition that lasted until well into the 20th century.  It was ensconced in law as an amendment to the Constitution only after FDR died during his fourth term.

Have a good evening.

R/SCG