Supreme Court Appointments a Big Deal Because Government Constantly Overstepping Bounds: New at Reason

The Supreme Court is a major issue in the 2016 election. What does that mean?

A. Barton Hinkle writes:

Fear about future Supreme Court nominees resonates among Democrats, who don’t want to see Antonin Scalia replaced by another Antonin Scalia.

Worry over Supreme Court picks also resonates among Republicans: Ensuring a conservative majority on the court is a major reason to support Trump, said delegates to the GOP convention last month.

In one regard this is perfectly rational. Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote, is 80. Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 83. Stephen Breyer is 77, Clarence Thomas 68. Scalia’s seat seems likely to stay open until at least November and probably until next spring. So President Obama’s successor could appoint two, three, or even four justices, especially if he or she wins a second term.

In another regard, however, the heavy emphasis on the Supreme Court is rather dispiriting.

It is dispiriting because the court’s principal function consists of setting the boundaries for government action. In that role, it ought to be heard from only on rare occasions—that is, if the other branches of government respect the limits the Constitution imposes upon them.

View this article.