Supreme input: We all have a role in deciding who sits on the nation's highest court

There is a fact that people need to understand as they listen to the debate over the Supreme Court.

It centers around numbers -- and lifetime terms.

Nine people sitting in a courtroom in Washington have the power to make decisions for the rest of us 320 million Americans. And those decisions are final.

They are supposed to be made impartially, with the Constitution and the rule of law as the yardstick. They are supposed to be nonpartisan.

But some are wondering if perhaps these justices have too much say, too much power -- and if their word really should be the last word.

And while currently that question is being raised by conservative pundits -- it has also been raised by one of the justices himself, who suggested that one of the court's most recent decisions had nothing to do with law or its legal powers and was more about interpretation and emotion.

In other words, not unimpassioned at all.

And truth be told, there have been other Supreme Court decisions, other close decisions that have been scrutinized by the liberal side, too, in past years.

The bottom line is, Supreme Court justices are lifetime appointees. So if we don't like the decisions they make, that's too bad. They cannot be removed or replaced.

Changing the mix requires two perfect storms to occur -- a justice has to resign and the president in the White House has to be your party's leader.

And therein lies the conundrum -- and the reason so many more people should be talking about the upcoming elections.

It is really about power. It is really about the highest court in the land and the power it holds to change America.

The sitting president at the time of a Supreme Court retirement can change the leanings of a court. A liberal president can create a liberal leaning court majority. A conservative president can do the same.

There are checks and balances along the way, of course, but in the end, who is in charge in the White House and in the Congress matters a great deal.

So when the 2016 elections come around, the question will not just be about who will decide the legislative issues of the day, but who will be in a position to replace any of the justices who are getting up there in years and who very well might retire in the near future.

No matter which side of the issues you are on, and whether or not you agree with recent opinions, that is the critical question.

But the other one is worth pondering, too.

Should five people -- or nine people, or six people -- really have that much power?

Do the nation's checks and balances really work?

It is a debate worth considering.

Published in Editorials on July 8, 2015 11:30 AM