SB 2017-121: Nonpartisan Judiciary Amendment (Rejected)

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

With deepest respect to the honorable senator, I'm afraid I don't see what it is this bill attempts to "solve," or how it would bear any practical effect on the function of the federal judiciary. The proposed amendment is not unlike Rosecrans strategy at Chickamaugua: it attempts to solve a problem that does not exist and, in doing so, creates a compromising hole in our constitutional framework.

In the course of the last year, we have seen two respected justices of the Supreme Court serve as chairs of their respective parties without compromising the integrity either of the court or the political process. I can hardly believe that either Windjammer or Yankee did disservice to our republic by declining to resign from the bench during their tenures, not do I think "criticism from the left" is sufficient reason to par justices from holding party office. Further, as Windjammer said, this amendment is completely unenforceable; it would prevent justices only from taking the title of chair while doing absolutely nothing to stop them from directing party strategy in an unofficial capacity. That is more than a loophole; it is a gaping breech in the premise of this amendment, in effect proposing a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for party politics.

This is a bad idea that would accomplish nothing more than providing yet another stick of kindling for the partisan flamewars that break out on IRC every election, and I strongly recommend its rejection to the Senate.