Supreme Court

Why Not a Sub?      

   When a player comes out of a game - due to injury or grievous foul - the team uses a substitute to keep the sides evenly matched. The National Hockey League is the exception. With a penalty, they play short-handed for a few minutes.

   Why can't the world's greatest democracy substitute for a supreme court justice who dies or becomes too ill even to work from the hospital, as did Justice Ginsberg? 

   We are in a pickle weeks before a critical election with eight on the court. Democrats complain that the president dares to nominate a ninth justice. They would do the same thing if the "robe" was on the other...oh you know the thing...as forgetful Joe Biden would say. 

   Our founders thought hard, producing a constitution that limits governmental power and provides for rights most of us hold dear. But, they didn't know Justice Ginsburg was going to leave us at an inconvenient time. 

   If the election is inconclusive, and there are scads of lawsuits that need supreme attention, any 4-4 tie will defer to lower courts. Whatever your ideology, do you want unknown (to you and me) judges making critical decisions? 

   We think this could win constitutional approval: How about a law that when a president takes office, first term, he nominates a substitute for the court.  

   The Senate vets the nominee as usual. If confirmed - and later needed - he or she would sit on the court until the president and Senate works on a permanent replacement. Could be the substitute.

   If the sub is never needed, he or she is reconfirmed or replaced, at minimum, on a new president's entry to the White House. Our leaders do have time for this important duty. You can supply other necessary details, send it to Congress and take credit. It would eliminate endless, unnecessary griping and lying. 

   It's crazy that the sports world - we don't like tie games - is more efficient than federal government.

       Jimmy