(Law) recently published in the University of Pittsburgh Law Review. The divisive battle over the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court reflects a disturbing reality — the justices’ personal ideologies exert undue influence on the court’s work. When a majority of conservative or liberal justices can impose their perspective, it creates three serious problems:
- People who share the perspective of the court minority lack meaningful representation on many important issues
- The judicial appointment process has become highly politicized as each side fights for a court majority
- We increase the risk of ill-advised decisions. Better decisions are made when they are based on a diversity of perspectives
Orentlicher argues for a Supreme Court that is evenly balanced between liberal and conservative views. Majority rule does not make sense in a judicial branch that should be guided by legal principle rather than popular sentiment. Drawing on approaches at European courts and several state supreme courts,he identifies three models for achieving ideological balance on the Supreme Court and lower courts. He also discusses how a combination of those models would provide the best results.
