BRANCHING OUT

 The Year of My Life: reminiscences and rants: Politics -- © 2016 -- Available on Amazon or limited library access at TheYearOfMyLifeVR.com

Sometimes I wonder what has happened to this country.  We started out with such noble intentions.  The founding fathers came up with a system of government that was “incorruptible.” The plan was to have three branches of government.  Each branch needed the other two to survive.  In this system of checks and balances, the Congress would propose the laws and the President of the United States had the power to veto any perspective law that was seen as an overstepping of boundaries.  Congress had the power to override that veto, but it wasn’t easy.  An impartial Supreme Court had the obligation to nullify or let stand any law that was deemed to be unfair by “We the People.”  It was felt that the Supreme Court of the United States couldn’t be subverted, until it was.

It happened slowly, over a long period of time.  The political party siblings became more set in their ways as they grew up.  Instead of growing closer, they grew further and further apart.  They fought constantly and, at times, hated each other.  But they always loved their baby brother, SCOTUS, because he was always the voice of reason and never took sides.  SCOTUS would always ask why circumstances and the situations surrounding those circumstances existed.  He would don an impartial blindfold and weigh the validity of both sides on the ever present scales of justice.  He did this because he loved both of his brothers equally; until the day that he started favoring one over the other.  He shifted back and forth like a metronome, courting favors from both brothers.  He did this so often that, over time, he lost his own identity and ceased being the voice of reason that had defined him in his youth.

Nothing is black and white. Politicians and ratings hungry media like to make it that way because it is in their best interest for issues to be that way.  It’s also in our best interest. People like easy answers to complex questions; unfortunately, there are none.

I’ve never understood this quirk of adult human nature.  As young children, we ask why all the time.  As we grow older, we stop asking and start accepting.  The only people who still ask why are pollsters and, at times, reporters.  Just about everyone else prefers to pledge allegiance to a party and be led by party leaders.  Did you ever wonder why party extremes are called the radical left and the radical right?  It’s because people become radicalized by individuals who are masters of political manipulation for their own means. Perhaps you've heard of them, they're called politicians.

I began studying political science and world affairs in college. I've been studying those subjects ever since. I've learned that political rhetoric, on either side, is nothing but a smokescreen for politicians to cloud the issues and get elected. When I study a national or world event, the first thing I do is totally ignore the political rhetoric. I watch and read the news from both sides and no sides.  And then it all comes down to the inevitable choice of the lesser of two evils.  I don’t mean that to be derogatory.  I only used that expression to highlight the fact that there is no such thing as the perfect candidate or issue.  Every political decision, no matter how big or small, will always be the lesser of two evils.

Politicians and political issues evolve over time.  In the same way that I could never have written this book in one draft; it is unrealistic to believe that a politician will be totally defined on the first day that he or she takes office.  By the same token, legislation isn’t perfect the moment the ink dries.  For example, Medicare was a disaster when it first became law.  It was confusing and rife for abuse.  It still is, more than fifty years later.  But along the way, millions of senior and disabled Americans have lived healthier lives because Medicare came into being.  It is a work in progress, as is Obamacare, for tens of millions of previously uninsured or uninsurable Americans.  Both plans have detractors who point out the many flaws, including increased costs to other Americans.  But those detractors fail to realize that both health plans are works in progress that will never end.

If we were a country of robots this “imperfect” legislation would never be a problem, but we’re not.  As the diversification and needs of Americans change, so does the legislation put in place to protect us.  Unfortunately, the legislation doesn’t always keep pace with our needs.  Which brings up the problem of three branches of government that refuse to coexist for the betterment of the country.

Experts are quick to give a lot of reasons as to why our government has stopped working.  They will tell you that politicians inside the beltway that surrounds Washington, DC, have lost touch with Americans who live outside of the beltway.  They will tell you that the Republican Party, currently in control of Congress, has been hijacked by right wing conservatives.  They will tell you that the president of the United States has become frustrated with an unresponsive Congress and has taken to writing his legacy through the use of executive orders.  All three of these reasons are partially true.  But there is a fourth reason that is totally true.

Ever hear the phrase “politics makes strange bedfellows”?  Have you ever wondered what that really means?  Basically, it means that politicians will work with anyone, even people they dislike, if they find it advantageous to do so.  And what is the number one reason politicians find it advantageous to work with anyone?  The correct answer is money.  Show of hands, how many of you got that right?  Good for you!  Now we’ll take a short break while you run to the sink and wash the blood off your hands (yes, I am blatantly pandering to friends of Shakespeare).  You see, dear readers, you’re the reason they take that money.  What’s that?  You’ve never forced them to take that money?  The constituents doth protest too much, methinks (still pandering).  When you look at the way that the political system works, you did.

You see, running for office is really expensive.  It takes tens to hundreds of millions of dollars and, contrary to popular belief, most political candidates don’t have that kind of money.  The ones that do, don’t want to spend it on a 50/50 chance of winning.  Even Donald Trump, who made a big deal out of saying that he could self-fund his campaign, is taking money from contributors (I wonder if he suddenly realized that a better investment might be to spend it on the gaming tables at his old hotel).  So it’s no surprise that political candidates turn to the voters and, more importantly, special interest groups for the bulk of their campaign contributions.

Now a candidate can’t generate enough cash by only taking ours.  But there are plenty of people who have much more money than we do; and by people I mean corporations.  You see, in 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States (the baby brother, SCOTUS) ruled on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.  At its core, attorneys for Citizens United argued that a nonprofit corporation should be considered a person for the purpose of campaign donations.  Basically, they wanted all campaign donation limits lifted for nonprofit corporations.  Over time, that nonprofit distinction was broadened to include any corporations, organizations, labor unions, associations, secret clubs in treehouses, and the United Federation of Planets (notice how I snuck in another Trekkie pander).  This allowed an entirely new generation of wealthy “people” to give an unlimited amount of money to political campaigns.

Now it’s time for political candidates to go a courtin’.  They dress up in their Sunday best and set out to find their perfect matches.  But how do they know when they’ve made a love connection?  That’s where the voters come in because when it comes to setting up political candidates with corporate donors, we are all matchmakers.  Without us, they would have no idea of what they want in a mate.  The good news is that we have an extensive computer database of wealthy, single “people” who are more than ready to commit to a long-term relationship with Mr. or Ms. Right Political Candidate.

That old saying that there’s someone for everybody is especially true when it comes to dating political corporate donors.  It doesn’t matter whether you’re interested in healthcare or hand guns, saving endangered species or money on your fuel bill, cleaner air or air travel.  Here’s the best part about dating political corporate donors; they already know that you’re only after them for their money!  So what do they get from you?  I’m glad you asked me that, my friends.  You know how you’ve always been told that you can’t buy respect, you have to earn it?  Well, that’s not exactly true in the world of political donor dating.  In this world, money does buy respect by the people who take the money.  So what does this respect do for you other than to boost your corporate donor ego?  It also has the potential to boost your cooperate donor bottom line. It’s as if all political candidates have read Dale Carnegie’s book “How to Win Friends and Influence People” and they just can’t wait to practice what they’ve learned on your behalf.

Now I don’t want you to think that there’s something underhanded going on here.  Most of the time, there isn’t.  There are times when politicians will get caught up in the moment and go beyond the boundaries of a politician/donor relationship.  Those moments are few and far between.  When they do happen, both parties find themselves in bitter divorce proceedings culminating in huge financial losses and/or career reversals and, in extreme cases, unforeseen roommates.  But most of the time, it’s a symbiotic relationship that can help to forge agreements and deals which are beneficial to that politicians constituents.  A problem arises when a politician’s constituents become much more important than the country as a whole.

And for anyone but the president, constituents are the people who make sure that politicians keep getting a paycheck.  During congressional and senatorial election seasons, politicians are more worried about their constituents in their home states than they are about the people of the United States.  I once heard that party leaders start grooming politicians for the next election cycle on the day after they are sworn into office.  I can’t swear that it’s true, but it wouldn’t shock me if it was.

British Lord Acton once wrote, in a letter to an archbishop of the Church of England, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.”  Lord Acton was referring to the actions of the church; but he could just as well have been referring to politicians who allow their actions to be defined by the office that they hold, rather than an obligation to the people that they serve.

But voters don’t seem to care.  We only care about how we personally benefit and the rest of the country be damned!  We only care about whether it means jobs, an influx of money into our communities, or justification of a religious or personal prejudice.  In actuality, we’re more like pimps than matchmakers.  We set up our politicians with lobbyists who pledge money to get what they want.

Every new session of Congress brings with it approximately 20,000 registered lobbyists attempting to sway politicians to their way of thinking. By the way, the term “lobbyist” is a throwback to a time when influence peddlers actually hung out in hotel lobbies and waited for politicians (now, that really does make me feel like a pimp).  Anyway, we take our cut in the form of less restrictive gun laws (NRA), more assistance for seniors (AARP), improved cell phone communications (Verizon) and much, much more.  How much influence is gained is directly proportional to the size of the industry these lobbyists represent.  Now to be fair, not all of these attempts at gaining influence are bad for the American voter.  Some service organizations do try to influence politicians to increase benefits and working conditions for their members.  But conversely, some corporations are only looking to increase their bottom lines.  The only certainty is that by the end of each session, someone will get a happy ending.  And isn’t that really what it’s all about?  Because we’re not just talking about a few dinners or a private jet to a golf weekend.  We’re talking about loads of money to buy campaign ads and pay for campaign staff so that a few years down the line, politicians will still be able to buy campaign ads and pay for campaign staff.  Get the picture?  It’s all about job security or, more precisely, job insecurity.

And while we’re on the subject of money, let’s talk about political action committees (PAC) and Super PAC.  By the way, if you haven’t already noticed, the one thing that politics and the military have one thing in common is acronyms for everything.  A political action committee raises money for a political race or issue.  Now there are all set of rules about who can donate, how much they can donate, how the money can be used, and what happens when then the race is over.  In general, the rules are the same for a PAC and a SPAC.  Neither PACs can have any contact with a candidate or the staff; but there is one glaring difference.  You know the old saying that you can’t take it with you?  That doesn’t pertain to a Super PAC.  Super PAC money doesn’t have to be returned to anyone.  Any leftover funds can be used for just about anything.  As far as I know, this loophole has yet to be abused.  I have no doubt that this will change if given enough time.  But since SPAC was spawned by Citizens United, my solution would be to get rid of Citizens United altogether.

In my opinion, there’s just too much organized money being infused into and ultimately contributing to election results.  We need to get rid of special interests and get back to the interests of the country as a whole.  Political candidates rarely address this because doing so would jeopardize their abilities to get elected or reelected by their constituencies.  Which brings us back to our strange bedfellows saying. Apparently, politicians will sleep around for the right price.  Try that outside of the beltway and you’ll get arrested.  But try it inside of the beltway and it will get you rewarded by the voters.  

Join me in the fight against injustice!

 I'm trying to help people fight injustice. Right now, I'm paying for this out of my own pocket. That won't go very far. If you can't afford to contribute, you can still help me by sharing this page on social media and telling your family and friends. Thank you.

My name is Mark, and I'm looking for trouble. I need your help to find it. I know that seems like a strange request because most of us go out of our way to avoid trouble. In an ideal world, that would be easy. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. Sometimes, trouble finds us through no fault of our own.

 

You see stories on 24-hour news channels or social media networks. They are the feel-good stories about people in trouble helped by total strangers. But those stories are 1 in 1,000. Most people in crisis may go looking for help, but that help rarely goes beyond family and friends because they lack the money or ability to fight back.

Please continue reading...

It’s Not Political. It’s Personal.

I’ve been a writer for 40 years and yet it feels strange to be writing this.  I’m not one to blow my own horn.  My accomplishments in life are my own.  I have never felt the need to impress people with them and at 63 years of age, I don’t care whether I impress people or not.  But I could not stay silent any longer.

When then political candidate Donald J. Trump stood in front of a crowd of thousands and gleefully mocked Serge Kovaleski, a New York Times reporter afflicted with cerebral palsy, I could no longer stay silent.  Up until then, he had denigrated Latinos, Muslims, prisoners of war, women – the list goes on and on.  I had watched from afar, sympathetic and embarrassed for them.  But I did not get angry until he attacked me.

You see, I was born with cerebral palsy.  Unlike the New York Times reporter, it only affected my ability to walk.  I say only because, outside of the fact that I was relegated to a wheelchair, my life was normal.  I was fortunate to grow up in a place where I was not bullied because I was different.  I had a lot of friends, incredible parents, and more than understanding teachers.  But as my friends started leaving for college and it became apparent that my parents had done all they could for me, I adopted a win at all costs attitude towards getting out of the wheelchair.

At this point, I should say that this was not the first time that I had attempted to leave the wheelchair.  As a young child, I had been fitted with short-legged and long-legged braces.  In those days, they were a superstructure of steel and heavy leather pads.  I hated them.  In the New York winters, they were cold and the summers made them hot and sticky. The constant pressure of the leather pads on my knees would cause them to become red and irritated.  But I would wear them because I had been told that stretching my muscles, much like stretching a rubber band, would cause the muscle atrophy to release. The doctors said to wear the braces locked for two hours a day.  I wore them locked for eight hours a day.  I wore the short braces, designed to hold my feet in a straight position, when I went to sleep.  My reasoning was that sleep was a wasted period that could be better utilized as therapy.  My parents put an end to that when sleep became no sleep.  In between, there were fruitless surgeries to forcibly release atrophied tendons or muscles.  When all was said and done, I found myself back at square one and still in a wheelchair.

Years later, I was about to transfer to a college 2,500 miles away from home.  There was no Americans with Disabilities Act.  Leaving home for the first time would be difficult.  A wheelchair would only compound that difficulty.  Then and there, I made the decision to either leave the wheelchair behind or “crash and burn” in the attempt.  It was all or nothing.  Six months later, I found myself on a plane to Tucson, Arizona.  My wheelchair stayed in New York.

The next ten years saw me go from braces and crutches to crutches to two canes to one cane and finally, to four years of experimental surgery.  During those four years, I had to relearn how to walk no less than seven times.  The surgeries were successful. And because of them, thousands of young children no longer endure the pain that I endured as a child.  That is my legacy.

I have not told you this story as an ego boost or a play for sympathy.  I desire neither of these.  When Donald J. Trump stood on the stage, in front of thousands of people, and gleefully mocked that New York Times reporter; he made a mockery of my entire life.  I’ve never met the reporter, but I can bet that he and I traveled similar paths.  There are millions of handicapped people in this country.  Some, like myself, have been handicapped since birth.  Others have become handicapped because of accident, acts of violence, or defending this country.  It is hard enough for anyone to live a normal life without being stereotyped by gender, skin color, ethnicity, religious beliefs, or handicap.  When someone running for president of the United States stands before a crowd and openly mocks those not as fortunate as he, when he robs them of their dignity without a shred of remorse; that person will never receive a shred of respect from me.  If I can’t respect Donald J. Trump as a human being, I can’t respect him as my president.  It’s not political.  It’s personal.

FULL COURT PRESSED

The Year of My Life: reminiscences and rants: Politics -- © 2016 -- Available on Amazon or limited library access at TheYearOfMyLifeVR.com

The GOP in the final stages of the POTUS selection process. The party is in disarray and the candidates are sniping at each other like five-year-olds on a school playground. Republicans are trying to get back to their core values as a party, but extremists within the party are derailing every effort. Political debates are beginning to look like Jerry Springer shouting matches. The only saving grace in this whole process is that the party’s rank and file is reveling in this departure from an otherwise boring election process.

Then, the worst thing that could possibly happen to them actually happens. A leading advocate of the GOP’s intertwined political and religious beliefs, ups and dies on them. To make matters worse, he happens to be on the Supreme Court of the United States. I mean, he had the job for life! As a party, they hoped that the life part would last beyond the current presidential election cycle. But, alas, such is life.

To be fair, I could have just as easily chosen a justice affiliated with the other side of the aisle because the degree of political influence is interchangeable; but fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your political point of view) none of them have died recently. So let’s take a closer look at the Supreme Court justice in question.

His name was Antonin Gregory Scalia. He was the only child of an Ellis Island immigrant father and a first generation Italian American mother. He was a good student who went from a Jesuit military school to graduating valedictorian and summa cum laude from Georgetown University. In 1986, then President Ronald Reagan nominated the former general counsel to former President Richard Nixon to the U.S. Supreme Court. He was deeply religious and extremely conservative in his political thinking.

As a Supreme Court justice, he was a strict constitutionalist. To put it simply, that means he believed that the founding fathers, who ratified the Constitution, had the uncanny ability to write a document that would never become societally outdated. Actually, it has more to do with how the Constitution is interpreted, rather than how it’s written. To a strict constitutionalist, you can add amendments in order to address societal changes, but you can’t interpret the Constitution in any way that would accommodate societal changes.

Let me choose a constitutional amendment as an example. Everyone knows the Second Amendment to the Constitution, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This amendment is actually made up of two parts. The first part is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State….” You see, this was written before we had a standing army. We were basically a bunch of reservists who grabbed a gun when there was a threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Eventually, we built a standing army and no longer needed a well-regulated militia. The second part of the amendment is “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The idea was that if there was any threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; the men folk would be able to grab guns that they kept in their homes and immediately form a well-regulated militia.

Strict constitutionalists believe that you should never interpret the constitution in a way that would remove any right that has been given to you by the Constitution. As with most things, that’s open to interpretation. My interpretation of the Second Amendment is that you have the right to own a gun if you’re part of a well-regulated militia. But a strict constitutionalist focuses more on the second part of the amendment stating that a person has a right to own a gun.

When this came before SCOTUS, of which Justice Scalia was a part, the justices ruled that the Constitution gave every American the right to own a gun. It was a majority ruling of a Republican controlled Supreme Court. Here’s where I have a problem with any political control of SCOTUS. The Supreme Court of the United States is supposed to be an impartial legal body, but that rarely seems to be the case. We have more guns than people in this country. We have the highest rate of firearms related deaths and injuries in the world. And yet, a Republican controlled Supreme Court opted for political dogma over impartiality. I’m not saying that a Supreme Court controlled by Democrats would have been any more impartial. I’m pretty sure that it would have been just as partial to a liberal point of view. What I am saying is that a society that has moved from muskets to assault rifles needs to be more flexible in its judicial decisions, whichever political party is in charge.

We are already seeing instances where society fails to keep up with technology. The Constitution of the United States will continue to be challenged. We need to ensure that when these challenges arise our Supreme Court justices do what’s right for the country and not what’s right for their respective political parties. But let’s get back to reality and the current Supreme Court dilemma; what to do when a justice dies.

So now the GOP has lost a leading political advocate and a powerful opponent of a great deal of liberal legislation. And as if that’s not enough, the POTUS that they’ve been fighting with for the last seven years has the power to nominate a more liberal thinking justice and change the entire political balance of the Supreme Court.

There’s plenty of time to nominate a new Supreme Court justice. Normally, that wouldn’t be a problem. But this isn’t a normal time in political history. From a Republican point of view, with a little bit of luck, they could take back the White House. If that happens, there would be a Republican controlled Congress and White House, at least for a couple of years. But that would be enough time to ensure a Republican nominee and a GOP majority in the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future. And if Republicans are really lucky, the next opening would be from the other side. Hey, I’m not being morbid. Supreme Court justices don’t have to die, they can retire.

Of course, there is always the possibility that the Democrats will hold on to the White House. In that case, a liberal Supreme Court justice will be appointed and the balance of power will shift. This shifting of political power isn’t what the founding fathers envisioned for SCOTUS. When the country was coming together, no one even considered that any of the three branches of government could corrupt the Constitution. They were building a framework that would enable the new American society to function. They thought that they had addressed all the problems that might arise and, for the times that they lived in, they had.

But they never could have foreseen how the power of the people would transform into the power of the party. And therein lies the problem with the Supreme Court of the United States. The justices no longer leave their political and religious beliefs at the entrance to the most hallowed judicial chamber in the country. Let’s take look at a sample of recent Supreme Court decisions.

Employee Paid Contraceptives: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby. This case focused on whether a Christian owned and operated company should be forced to pay for contraceptives for its employees, if those employees are insured under the Affordable Care Act. The corporation claimed that the ACA provision infringed on their religious liberty. This was a win for the pro-life, religious right-wing of the Republican Party. In case you’re wondering if this is a direct violation of the concept of separation of church and state that is mentioned in the Constitution of the United States, it isn’t. You see, the Constitution makes no mention of a separation of church and state. The Constitution only forbids the government from sponsoring a religion or compelling an American citizen to join a religion. The vote was 5-4 in favor of the Republican majority.

The Confederate Flag and Freedom of Speech: This case focused on whether Texas could reject specialty license plates bearing the Confederate battle flag. The court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that Texas could the reject those license plates. It’s interesting to note that the four Democrats on the court were joined by Republican Clarence Thomas, an African-American. It’s obvious that, when faced with a conflict between his personal and political beliefs, Thomas chose the former.

Race and Redistricting: This case focused on whether the Republican controlled Alabama State Legislature had redistricted high concentrations of black voters in some of its voting districts. The justices ruled that it had engaged in “racial gerrymandering.” The vote was 5-4 in favor of the Democrats. The four Democrats were joined by Justice Kennedy.

Housing Discrimination: A Texas group claimed that their low-income housing vouchers were being rejected by landlords in white suburban areas because they were not required to accept the vouchers unless they accepted Federal tax credits. This case focused on whether a disproportionate number of federal low-income tax credits were being disseminated to landlords in minority neighborhoods. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that this was happening. The four Democrats were joined by Justice Kennedy.

Pollution Limits: This case focused on whether or not the Environmental Protection Agency had violated the clean air act. The court ruled that the EPA had failed to do a cost benefit analysis before setting stricter limits on pollutants from power plants. The vote was 5-4 in favor of Republicans.

Same-Sex Marriage: The court ruled that same-sex couples can enjoy the same right to marry as heterosexual couples, anywhere in the United States. The vote was 5-4 in favor of the Democrats. The four Democrats were joined by Justice Kennedy.

There is an interesting aside to several of these Supreme Court decisions. I noticed that Justice Anthony Kennedy broke ranks with his fellow Republican justices on more than one occasion. Those occasions resulted in 5-4 votes in favor of the other side. I decided to take a more in-depth look at his background and found something that may help to explain this phenomenon.

Kennedy was nominated by President Ronald Reagan on November 30, 1987. Kennedy was confirmed by the Senate on February 3, 1988. At that time of his confirmation, there was a Republican president and a U.S. Senate controlled by Democrats. The confirmation vote was 97-0. One more thing, the confirmation of Justice Kennedy came nine months before a presidential election. I’m willing to bet that this moment in time, when politicians chose to do what was best for the country, has become indelibly etched in Justice Kennedy’s memory. I guess there are times when the scales of justice really are politically blind.

Although the justices are evenly matched at the moment, that won’t last for long. At this point, I should tell you that I don’t have a PhD in American history or constitutional law. What I’m about to say is only an opinion and I welcome any comments to the contrary. In my opinion, the founding fathers created a deeply flawed judicial branch. Here’s my idea of what would have worked better.

I think that the current, but temporary configuration of the Supreme Court works much better. We have an equal number of liberal and conservative justices. You see, the founding fathers failed to realize that it’s impossible to completely turn off a human beings belief system. Our beliefs, whether political or religious, become hardwired over time. Even if we had robot Supreme Court justices with artificial intelligence, it would be impossible to ensure that they wouldn’t “learn” our human belief system if given enough time. The founding fathers believed that, in the event of a deadlock, a ninth justice was the best solution. I believe that a better solution would have been to embrace party politics and require four members of each party be appointed to the Supreme Court.

So how would we overcome a judicial stalemate? My vision of SCOTUS would create a “ninth justice” comprised of the electorate. Once or twice a year, depending on the judicial workload, the voters would decide the outcome of any judicial decisions that were hopelessly deadlocked. There would be no campaigning or political party persuasion. The eight Supreme Court justices would submit two opposing conclusions for each case, directly to the American voters. In order to ensure fairness, each conclusion would be submitted to the opposing quartet of judges for analysis and editing until both sides agreed on the wording. The wording of the conclusions would be written in plain English and absent of any legalese. In the unlikely event that voting ended in a tie, the case in question would be referred down to the district court for adjudication. The decision of that court would be final.

In fact, let’s have some fun by trying my system out on an actual Supreme Court ruling. Recently, the eight remaining Supreme Court justices ruled on a case brought by the Obama Administration. In November of 2014, President Obama issued an executive order that gave temporary legal status, and an indefinite reprieve from deportation, to millions of illegal immigrants. It applied to undocumented parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who had lived here for at least five years. It also allowed immigrants, who arrived as children and are under 30, to apply for a deportation deferral if they are living here legally. There’s more, but that was the core of the argument. If my system actually came into being, there would be much more information.

Congressional Republicans claimed that Obama didn’t have the authority to delay the deportation of this many immigrants without legislation. A lower court blocked the executive order. The administration appealed to the Supreme Court. SCOTUS split straight down party lines; the four Democrats disagreed with the lower court, while the four Republicans affirmed the court’s ruling. The deadlock allowed the lower court’s ruling to stand. If you were the “ninth justice,” how would you rule? Let me hear from you. The prologue of this book lists several ways to reach me.

So would my “ninth justice” idea ensure that the Supreme Court of the United States better represented the will of the people? Here’s something to think about before you answer. A majority of voters, whatever their politics, believe that politicians become detached from the people who elect them to political office. For the most part, they aim their frustrations at the executive and congressional branches of government. The judicial branch of government is largely overlooked because, for the most part, the justices operate behind closed doors and with very little fanfare.

In all honesty, it would be almost impossible to apply the same voting system to the other two branches of government. For one thing, the unilateral powers of the president are limited and, in most cases, only temporary. Whether or not you believe that a large percentage of congressional output is political posturing; the fact remains that the sheer workload of elected officials and their staffs would make a system such as I’ve described, completely unworkable.

But the Supreme Court is the only branch of government in which the electorate has absolutely no say in the matter. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could change that? The ramifications of Supreme Court decisions can last over many decades and generations before they are ever challenged. Unlike laws that are designed to deal primarily with punishment, Supreme Court decisions deal with cultural and social changes. These decisions may not be as obvious to the average American citizen as are laws that deal with everyday actions.

Supreme Court decisions affect Americans on a far deeper level. These decisions permeate throughout our societal fabric and helped to create and expand an American sense of values to this country and the rest of the world. On the surface, a Supreme Court decision may appear to only deal with one individual or one company; but that decision will eventually affect many or all individuals and companies in this country.