How To Fix The Supreme Court: Lessons From A Disenchanted Legal Scholar

SAHIL KAPUR
PublishedOCTOBER 13, 2014, 8:00 AM EDT
.
Erwin Chemerinsky, the founding Dean of UC-Irvine School of Law and a renowned legal scholar, has some scathing words for the Supreme Court: It "has frequently failed, throughout American history, at its most important tasks, at its most important moments."

This critique is contained in the progressive legal luminary's new book, provocatively titled "The Case Against The Supreme Court."
.
Chemerinsky tells TPM he wrote the book after realizing he had been "making excuses" for the Court over three decades of teaching it, and decided to make the case that it has often failed its duty to protect individual and minority rights against the passions of the majority.
.
His disenchantment is shared: The Court's popularity with Americans is near an all-time low of 44 percent, down from 60 percent in the early 2000s. Forty-eight percent now disapprove of it, according to a Gallup poll last week.
.
Chemerinsky spoke to TPM about why the Supreme Court is broken and how to fix it. A lightly edited transcript follows.
.
Your book is called "The Case Against The Supreme Court." That could be read as meaning you want to abolish the Supreme Court, but that's not what you're saying. What should be done with it?
.
I don't believe we should eliminate the Supreme Court. I believe that the Supreme Court is essential to enforce the Constitution. But I do propose many reforms, ranging from a clear definition of the role of the Court, to merit selection of Supreme Court justices, to changing the confirmation process, to term limits for justices, to changing the way the Court communicates - like cameras in the Court, to applying the ethics rules that apply to lower court judges for Supreme Court justices, and also changing recusal policies in the Supreme Court.

[...]

{Source}