Does the Supreme Court Need Reserve Players on the Bench?

p>A standing-room-only crowd filled the courtroom ofTypically they do not disclose their reasons for recusal,
Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently whenthough it is usually apparent that a justice may have a
retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connorpersonal or financial conflict of interest, or may have
appeared there to help decide three Montana cases.worked on a case or a closely related matter prior to
Although it is rare to see a former member of thejoining the court.
nation's highest court fill in on a lower court panel, it isThe remaining eight justices decide the case if one of
not unusual in the federal court system for judges totheir brethren takes a pass. This means the court can
substitute for one another. The only court that doessplit 4-4, which is liable to happen on any number of
not permit pinch-hitters is the Supreme Court.issues where the modern court is polarized. A tie
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., who chairs the Senatemeans the lower court's decision stands, but the
Judiciary Committee, thinks it may be time for theSupreme Court's action does not establish a
Supreme Court to allow retired justices to fill in whenprecedent that is binding in future cases. Leahy and
an active member of the court recuses himself orStevens argue that justices may avoid recusing
herself from a case. The suggestion, according tothemselves to avoid having cases end in such an
Leahy, comes from none other than the just-retiredunfulfilling way.
Justice John Paul Stevens, who at age 90 may"If there is a way for retired justices to help the court
already be feeling some remorse over his decision tofulfill its role in our democracy, I think we should
step down.consider it," Leahy told The Washington Post.
Once a federal judge, always a federal judge. Article IIIIt strikes me that the substitution proposal would create
of the U.S. Constitution establishes that federal judgesmuch bigger problems than it would solve. If a tie
"shall hold their offices during good behavior,"occurs because of a recusal, the Supreme Court can
effectively allowing them to serve for life unlessrevisit the issue in another case. On the other hand, a
impeached.(1) After retirement, judges may take whatjustice who opts not to step aside in a particular case
is known as "senior status," continuing to receive theis open to second-guessing from critics, who will argue
same annual salary they received while active andthat the justice was afraid to give a substitute with a
retaining the ability to hear cases on a part-timedifferent philosophy the opportunity to cast the deciding
basis.(2)vote. It is much healthier for the high court to simply
These provisions preserve the judiciary'swait to set its nationally binding, unreviewable
independence and integrity by immunizing judges fromprecedents in cases where no justice needs to be
political and financial pressures. They also provide adisqualified.
pool of experienced judges ready to step in wheneverLeahy's proposal also carries a partisan tone. Former
a full-time judge is unavailable.Justice O'Connor is a judicial moderate, while the other
Federal law provides that "Any retired circuit or districttwo current Supreme Court retirees - Justices
judge may be designated and assigned by the chiefStevens and David Souter - are more closely aligned
judge or judicial council of his circuit to perform suchwith the court's liberal faction, which is currently
judicial duties within the circuit as he is willing and ableoutnumbered 5-4 on many issues by the conservative
to undertake." This means that judges who havebloc led by Chief Justice John Roberts. Allowing these
retired from district courts may, on occasion, serve onretirees to step back onto the high court is a no-lose
the three-judge panels of the circuit courts of appeals.proposition for Leahy, a highly partisan backer of the
Active district court judges may also be called on fromliberals. Only O'Connor is even remotely likely to side
time to time to fill vacancies at the circuit court level.with the conservatives in a split decision, and even
Meanwhile, senior judges and justices from higherthen she is going to be among the more moderate
courts, including the Supreme Court, may fill vacanciesconservatives. In nearly all cases, allowing substitutions
in lower courts. Former Justice O'Connor took seniorwill either strengthen the liberals or leave their power
status when she left the Supreme Court in 2006 andunchanged.
has since heard cases in appellate courts across theLeahy has not said how he would propose to go
nation.about selecting which justice should fill in for a vacancy
This substitution and mixing of judges from variousin a particular case.
levels of the court system is intellectually healthy asWe do not have a non-ideological, non-political
well as efficient. Lower court judges can remindSupreme Court today. That's too bad. But we do have
appellate judges, who may not have run a trial court inan independent court that is free to decide cases
many years (if ever), what it is like on the front lines ofwithout regard to what Congress or the President
the federal justice system. Judges from higher courtswould prefer. We need only look to last year's Citizens
can bring renewed rigor and a broader perspective toUnited decision-and President Obama's childish State
lower court proceedings.of the Union rant-for proof of that. The Leahy-Stevens
But I don't think it is a good idea to extend thisproposal looks like an effort to stack the bench with
mix-and-match system of judicial selection to thetheir preferred bench players. When it comes to the
nation's highest court. I think it would further politicizehighest court in the land, we should accept no
the court and undermine respect for the justices andsubstitutes.
their decisions. This would not be good for the country.Sources:
Justices have complete discretion over whether to(1) U.S.
recuse themselves from hearing a particular case.