A More Perfect Constitution Summary

In chapter three of his book A More Perfect Constitution, Sabato addresses the main issues that he sees with the current Supreme Court. He begins by addressing the growing entitlement of the court, citing a recent incident in which several judges insisted against allowing cameras into the Court. Sabato believes that these cameras could have helped to reveal potential problems in the Court’s proceedings and that this prevention of cameras showed the privilege and power given to these judges. Sabato continues to describe the issues with the Court’s lack of review to ensure judge fitness and how this allows them to interpret the Constitution improperly, disregarding its original goals. After this introduction, Sabato moves onto describing the
specific issues that he finds in the Supreme Court, beginning with lifetime tenure. Sabato describes how the states each have their own term limits on judges, unlike the lifetime terms that federal judges have. Naturally, Sabato acknowledges that not all state procedures will work on a federal level but reminds readers that many of the problems that states have with judge election do not exist with presidential appointment of judges. Sabato continues to describe the divisive decisions made by the Supreme Court and how many view the Court as “out of touch,” judging based on their own personal views instead of what the Constitution meant. Additionally, Sabato brings up the issue of changing views – lifetime tenure allows judges to stick with views out of touch with reality, harming their judgement. In addition to keeping the judges in touch with the rest of the world, Sabato recognizes the need for the Court to increase its diversity to account for its growing need. However, he also recognizes the possibility of court packing by allowing the Supreme Court’s size to change without the need for additional amendments, and thus proposes a hard limit rather than allowing the court size to change without amending the Constitution again. Finally, Sabato continues the topic of political manipulation by addressing the issue of judge salaries, citing James Madison’s concern about using money to cause corruption due to low judge salaries. By changing all these factors, Sabato intends for his amendments to fix the big issues in the Court without any radical changes. Sabato begins his list of amendments by proposing non-renewable fifteen-year term limits for all federal judges. This would replace the current lifetime tenure that federal judges have. Sabato’s amendment would allow judges at lower levels than the Supreme Court to appeal to the Senate for a five-year extension to their term. Term limits would help to ensure that judges are fit for their position and in touch with reality. Sabato suggests that the current lifetime tenure of judges causes them to represent outdated views which no longer apply as society changes. Additionally, he points out that Supreme Court appointments have been used as a way for presidents to influence the country long after leaving office. Term limits would help to prevent this while also encouraging presidents to pick better qualified candidates regardless of age. Sabato recognizes that having the Senate decide term extensions would cause denial based on partisan decisions but attempts to portray it as a positive despite the obvious downsides. Additionally, Sabato’s proposed amendment of age restrictions complements the fifteen-year term limit, as both would ensure that judges remain fit to serve. Sabato’s next amendment proposes increasing the size of the Supreme Court to a set number of twelve members. He suggests that these additional seats would allow increased diversity in the court while making judge selection a much less critical decision. Additionally, Sabato realizes that the Court lacks a set size in the Constitution and claims that his proposal would help protect the Court from manipulation. Sabato also says that although this would allow for even splits in the court, these splits would help the country and cause the Court to play a smaller role in the country’s decisions while also preventing “swing justices” from deciding divisive cases on their own. This amendment fits well with the last one, which guarantees that judicial salaries will cover all costs of living like Social Security. Sabato points out how occasionally judges must go to Congress to ask for salary increases and how these requests could potentially influence their judgement. Both amendments are partly to prevent outside influence on the Supreme Court, one by locking the court size and the second by keeping monetary needs from biasing the Court. With these combined amendments, Sabato plans to keep the courts objective and free from outside manipulation. In my opinion, Sabato’s first amendment would work but could use a small change. Fifteen-year term limits would help to prevent presidents from trying to exceed their influence with Supreme Court appointments, but Sabato’s decision to exclude the Supreme Court members from applying for a five-year extension confuses me. In fact, allowing the judges to apply to the Senate for an extension would likely help to ensure fitness of Supreme Court judges, as the Senate would be likely to approve an extension for judges that acted according to their duties. Otherwise, this amendment would work well and help improve the Supreme Court. On the other hand, I feel that Sabato’s second proposed amendment is filled with problems and should not be applied. First, this amendment stifles the possibility of having old but fit judges in the Supreme Court that can apply the wisdom they gained over their many years to their judgements. Additionally, adding a maximum age limit to the Constitution sets a bad precedent for future decisions in America. Currently, the Constitution lacks any maximum age limit for any position. With Sabato’s amendment in place, this would no longer be the case. In fact, this amendment could possibly increase ageism towards the elderly, as it would effectively state that the U.S. Government sees them as less fit to serve than younger people. Because of this, Sabato’s second proposed amendment would not be a good idea without serious consideration of its consequences. Like the previous amendment, in my opinion Sabato’s third amendment would not work well.
Although having increased slots in the Supreme Court would boost the potential for diversity, the amendment fails to cause any meaningful change in the actual diversity of the Court. Additionally, allowing for the possibility of a deadlocked Supreme Court would greatly increase the power of the appellate court. This power increase could have some negative side effects, as appointments to the appellate court do not have the same scrutiny as Supreme Court appointments. Sabato’s third amendment has too many issues to be applied to the Constitution, striking a strong contrast to his fourth amendment. Sabato’s final amendment, in my opinion, would bring a much-needed improvement to the federal courts. Naturally, these judges need to have a salary that covers their living expenses, as requiring judges to ask for raises from Congress can allow for serious biases or manipulation to enter play. This amendment also lacks any meaningful downsides, as its worst drawback is simply increasing spending by the federal government. Overall, while two of Sabato’s amendments would work well, the second and third would bring many issues and need more
consideration.