Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Boston College Prof Thinks We Need a Special New Court to ‘Fix’ the Supreme Court

Boston College Prof Thinks We Need a Special New Court to ‘Fix’ the Supreme Court

“This new court would have the final say on most cases”

Why do so many people on the left suddenly think the Supreme Court needs fixing? Could it be all about politics and control?

Campus Reform reports:

Prof urges the creation of a new ‘Constitutional Court’ to ‘fix’ SCOTUS

A law professor at Boston College is advocating for a new ”specialized court” to deal with “the most contentious” legal issues, such as abortion. He calls it “the United States Constitutional Court.”

In an op-ed for the New York Times, Professor Kent Greenfield argued that the Supreme Court “needs saving” and “the way to save the court is to create another one.”

“The Supreme Court needs a breather — a chance to reboot. The United States Constitutional Court would give it that,” Greenfield wrote.

He would leave those cases related to “interpretations of federal statutes or regulations” to the Supreme Court. He says if the Court makes makes “mistakes” with those then it is far less significant. “If the court gets them wrong, Congress can respond with new laws or regulations.”

However, “constitutional mistakes” are harder to “rectify,” and so “Congress can require the Supreme Court to refer cases it accepts that turn on constitutional questions to the constitutional court.”

Greenfield argued that this court should be made up of eight already sitting federal judges. The sitting president would select these judges from a panel created by a bipartisan Congressional committee.

After serving for a limited term, they would return to their original courts, guaranteeing “each president several appointments.”

This new court would have the final say on most cases, with Congress limiting the Supreme Court’s ability to hear appeals. When the lower court made its decision.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


All I know is my calendar does NOT say April 1

And, of course, the one thing not addressed in the quoted portion:
Who decides the ‘mistakes’?

I’m pretty sure if Congress tried passing such a plan the supreme court would rule it unconstitutional.

The Friendly Grizzly | November 30, 2020 at 12:00 pm

And 60 years ago, the John Birch Society wanted to abolish the supreme court. Or, abolish Earl Warren. Or both…

Well, at least the gent has a lovely byline in the New York Times he can frame on his office wall and share with his mother. Because that’s all this amounts to.

“the way to save the court is to create another one.”

But then how will we save that one?

Am I supposed to think this is meaningfully different from simply packing the court?

The solution to all of our problems is to give the POTUS at the time a kangaroo court that he/she/ze can load up with an ideological echo chamber choir and be the transient yet highest court in the country.

Yes, this is learned advice from a scholar of politics and government in a free society that wanted to go the opposite route of the banana republics. Good god, what happened to academia?

This is what the legalization of THC products has produced.

Typical Lefty lawfare: if you don’t like a ruling, appeal it. If you don’t like the next one, appeal it. And on and on up to the Supreme Court.

All this Prof is saying is that he doesn’t like the idea that you cannot appeal beyond the Supreme Court, should they decide against you. If somehow that court he is proposing should be established, in 20 years he’ll be looking for a still higher court of appeal. Sheesh — here’s a dude who has never heard “no”.

The last thing this country needs is another court.