On Being and Remaining a Republic

A misguided answer from Hillary Clinton.

J.R.L. Noland

Hillary Clinton’s answer to moderator Chris Wallace’s opening question at the third Presidential debate has received a lot of attention. As many will know by now, when asked about the sort of Supreme Court justices she might nominate, Clinton said the Court ought to stand up to the wealthy and powerful and “represent all of us.”

Although it is worth noting the deep irony of her formulation, her sentiment in itself will probably strike many Americans as reasonable and unobjectionable. After all, who would want the court to serve the interests of the rich only? Every American should expect a fair hearing should they ever find themselves before the Court.

What if the law is biased in favor of the wealthy and powerful? What if the laws don’t recognize changing moral norms and societal standards? Shouldn’t the justices take all of this into consideration and represent all the people and reflect the will of the people in their judgments? .....To Read More....

My Take - That's the problem with so many....they think it's the Supreme Court's responsibility to "represent" someone, or anyone for that matter.  It isn't!  It's the court's job to interpret the laws as determined by the legislature - the ones who actuality are supposed to "represent" the people who elect them - of every ilk.   Solution?  Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments and add a 28th Amendment to create age and term limits for the federal judiciary.....and the Congress.