Once again, 'Brutus' is proven prescient in the Anti-Federalist papers about the dangers of an unchecked judiciary. For example in Anti-Federalist #15, he writes:
"I have said that the judges under this system will be independent in the strict sense of the word: To prove this I will shew — That there is no power above them that can controul their decisions, or correct their errors. There is no authority that can remove them from office for any errors or want of capacity, or lower their salaries, and in many cases their power is superior to that of the legislature.
1st. There is no power above them that can correct their errors or controul their decisions — The adjudications of this court are final and irreversible, for there is no court above them to which appeals can lie, either in error or on the merits. — In this respect it differs from the courts in England, for there the house of lords is the highest court, to whom appeals, in error, are carried from the highest of the courts of law.
2d. They cannot be removed from office or suffer a dimunition of their salaries, for any error in judgement or want of capacity.
It is expressly declared by the constitution, — "That they shall at stated times receive a compensation for their services which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."
The only clause in the constitution which provides for the removal of the judges from office, is that which declares, that "the president, vice-president, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." By this paragraph, civil officers, in which the judges are included, are removable only for crimes. Treason and bribery are named, and the rest are included under the general terms of high crimes and misdemeanors. — Errors in judgement, or want of capacity to discharge the duties of the office, can never be supposed to be included in these words, high crimes and misdemeanors. A man may mistake a case in giving judgment, or manifest that he is incompetent to the discharge of the duties of a judge, and yet give no evidence of corruption or want of integrity. To support the charge, it will be necessary to give in evidence some facts that will shew, that the judges commited the error from wicked and corrupt motives.
3d. The power of this court is in many cases superior to that of the legislature. I have shewed, in a former paper, that this court will be authorised to decide upon the meaning of the constitution, and that, not only according to the natural and ob[vious] meaning of the words, but also according to the spirit and intention of it. In the exercise of this power they will not be subordinate to, but above the legislature. For all the departments of this government will receive their powers, so far as they are expressed in the constitution, from the people immediately, who are the source of power. The legislature can only exercise such powers as are given them by the constitution, they cannot assume any of the rights annexed to the judicial, for this plain reason, that the same authority which vested the legislature with their powers, vested the judicial with theirs — both are derived from the same source, both therefore are equally valid, and the judicial hold their powers independently of the legislature, as the legislature do of the judicial. — The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void; and therefore in this respect their power is superior to that of the legislature. In England the judges are not only subject to have their decisions set aside by the house of lords, for error, but in cases where they give an explanation to the laws or constitution of the country, contrary to the sense of the parliament, though the parliament will not set aside the judgement of the court, yet, they have authority, by a new law, to explain a former one, and by this means to prevent a reception of such decisions. But no such power is in the legislature. The judges are supreme — and no law, explanatory of the constitution, will be binding on them."
I also once again point back to Judge John Bannister Gibson's famous dissent in Eakin v. Raub, in which he essentially argued that John Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison was a power grab by the U.S. Supreme Court, which usurped legislative authority. Boy, was he right!
I haven't read the Anti-Federalist Papers in quite some time (the last time I taught American Political Thought about eight years ago), but the older I get the more I agree with Brutus.
First, I'm not sure I'm that smart. But truthfully, the system discourages America's best from seeking office. They are not willing to compete in the nasty environment that has surrounded American politics, especially since the 1980's and Lee Atwater's nuclear approach to destroying opposition.
I dabbled a bit in local politics from 2016-2022 and even got myself elected as a "regional captain" for the county-level Republican Party, representing my township. It was a real learning experience and I will never do it again...simply because I found that in politics nobody is your friend and will backstab you in a minute if you deviate from the party line. I ended up fighting other Republicans more than Democrats during my tenure, which is NOT what I signed up to do when asked to run for that job. The nastiness was unbelievable, and I walked away firmly believing that most of the people who get involved and run for those offices simply want the power and not the responsibility of fixing things. NEVER AGAIN!
In years past Lynette tried to convince me to run for office, but I wasn't interested. First, I've never donated to either party, so I'd strike out there. Second, I hate the idea of having to raise money to win office. Third, I don't think the system works in favor of the public very often these days. Fourth, I was afraid I'd become part of the system.
I refused to become part of the system, even under severe pressure, which is why I walked away. I was originally asked to run for that "captain" position to be part of the "team," since I had developed a reputation of being an outspoken and principled Conservative. But it turned out that the party bosses didn't want my principles but my leadership and organizing skills and independent friends network I had built over the years on social media. Once I got elected to the "team," the bosses quickly tried to co-opt me into their system and do their bidding, and not necessarily the right thing. That was a mistake on their part since I was not seeking power but to fix things locally and beat back some really bad left-wing policies that had taken root in my community. The really disappointing thing to me was seeing other people who I thought were friends, and who had encouraged me to get "involved," turn on me and plunge their daggers into my back because I wouldn't play ball. That made walking away so much easier. Like I said before, NEVER AGAIN!
Once again, 'Brutus' is proven prescient in the Anti-Federalist papers about the dangers of an unchecked judiciary. For example in Anti-Federalist #15, he writes:
"I have said that the judges under this system will be independent in the strict sense of the word: To prove this I will shew — That there is no power above them that can controul their decisions, or correct their errors. There is no authority that can remove them from office for any errors or want of capacity, or lower their salaries, and in many cases their power is superior to that of the legislature.
1st. There is no power above them that can correct their errors or controul their decisions — The adjudications of this court are final and irreversible, for there is no court above them to which appeals can lie, either in error or on the merits. — In this respect it differs from the courts in England, for there the house of lords is the highest court, to whom appeals, in error, are carried from the highest of the courts of law.
2d. They cannot be removed from office or suffer a dimunition of their salaries, for any error in judgement or want of capacity.
It is expressly declared by the constitution, — "That they shall at stated times receive a compensation for their services which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."
The only clause in the constitution which provides for the removal of the judges from office, is that which declares, that "the president, vice-president, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." By this paragraph, civil officers, in which the judges are included, are removable only for crimes. Treason and bribery are named, and the rest are included under the general terms of high crimes and misdemeanors. — Errors in judgement, or want of capacity to discharge the duties of the office, can never be supposed to be included in these words, high crimes and misdemeanors. A man may mistake a case in giving judgment, or manifest that he is incompetent to the discharge of the duties of a judge, and yet give no evidence of corruption or want of integrity. To support the charge, it will be necessary to give in evidence some facts that will shew, that the judges commited the error from wicked and corrupt motives.
3d. The power of this court is in many cases superior to that of the legislature. I have shewed, in a former paper, that this court will be authorised to decide upon the meaning of the constitution, and that, not only according to the natural and ob[vious] meaning of the words, but also according to the spirit and intention of it. In the exercise of this power they will not be subordinate to, but above the legislature. For all the departments of this government will receive their powers, so far as they are expressed in the constitution, from the people immediately, who are the source of power. The legislature can only exercise such powers as are given them by the constitution, they cannot assume any of the rights annexed to the judicial, for this plain reason, that the same authority which vested the legislature with their powers, vested the judicial with theirs — both are derived from the same source, both therefore are equally valid, and the judicial hold their powers independently of the legislature, as the legislature do of the judicial. — The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void; and therefore in this respect their power is superior to that of the legislature. In England the judges are not only subject to have their decisions set aside by the house of lords, for error, but in cases where they give an explanation to the laws or constitution of the country, contrary to the sense of the parliament, though the parliament will not set aside the judgement of the court, yet, they have authority, by a new law, to explain a former one, and by this means to prevent a reception of such decisions. But no such power is in the legislature. The judges are supreme — and no law, explanatory of the constitution, will be binding on them."
I also once again point back to Judge John Bannister Gibson's famous dissent in Eakin v. Raub, in which he essentially argued that John Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison was a power grab by the U.S. Supreme Court, which usurped legislative authority. Boy, was he right!
I haven't read the Anti-Federalist Papers in quite some time (the last time I taught American Political Thought about eight years ago), but the older I get the more I agree with Brutus.
I believe the answer to why more smart people don't get into politics is actually in the question. It is because they are smart.
re" "...Most Americans are smart enough ..."
============================
Really?
The comment was made in regard to Americas' supporting campaign finance limits. That indicates my fellow citizens are right about at least one thing.
re: "... To be clear, I WOULD NOT TAKE THAT JOB, but ..."
Why don't more smart people get into politics?
Replies welcome!
First, I'm not sure I'm that smart. But truthfully, the system discourages America's best from seeking office. They are not willing to compete in the nasty environment that has surrounded American politics, especially since the 1980's and Lee Atwater's nuclear approach to destroying opposition.
I dabbled a bit in local politics from 2016-2022 and even got myself elected as a "regional captain" for the county-level Republican Party, representing my township. It was a real learning experience and I will never do it again...simply because I found that in politics nobody is your friend and will backstab you in a minute if you deviate from the party line. I ended up fighting other Republicans more than Democrats during my tenure, which is NOT what I signed up to do when asked to run for that job. The nastiness was unbelievable, and I walked away firmly believing that most of the people who get involved and run for those offices simply want the power and not the responsibility of fixing things. NEVER AGAIN!
In years past Lynette tried to convince me to run for office, but I wasn't interested. First, I've never donated to either party, so I'd strike out there. Second, I hate the idea of having to raise money to win office. Third, I don't think the system works in favor of the public very often these days. Fourth, I was afraid I'd become part of the system.
I only have about 100 additional reasons.
I refused to become part of the system, even under severe pressure, which is why I walked away. I was originally asked to run for that "captain" position to be part of the "team," since I had developed a reputation of being an outspoken and principled Conservative. But it turned out that the party bosses didn't want my principles but my leadership and organizing skills and independent friends network I had built over the years on social media. Once I got elected to the "team," the bosses quickly tried to co-opt me into their system and do their bidding, and not necessarily the right thing. That was a mistake on their part since I was not seeking power but to fix things locally and beat back some really bad left-wing policies that had taken root in my community. The really disappointing thing to me was seeing other people who I thought were friends, and who had encouraged me to get "involved," turn on me and plunge their daggers into my back because I wouldn't play ball. That made walking away so much easier. Like I said before, NEVER AGAIN!