He Said, She Said: Confederate Monuments

February 18, 2021

The purpose of the series “He Said, She Said” is to create a respectful environment for differing stances on current controversial issues.

Introduction:

Recently, the display of monuments showcasing figures of the Confederacy have been met with heightened controversy. After months of gatherings initially sparked by the death of George Floyd, calls to remove these monuments have increased; some were removed legally through a municipal vote but others were illegally torn down by crowds. These events have led to countless conversations and debates over whether Confederate monuments should remain in the United States.

Confederate monuments across the United States. (NCDCR)

The placement of Confederate monuments began in the late nineteenth century, but most were built between the decades of the 1900s and the 1920s. In the 1890s, a group called the United Daughters of the Confederacy sought to protect the memory of their relatives, and funded the creation of countless monuments, many of which remain today (History).

Supporters of withdrawing Confederate monuments say that these monuments idolize the people who tried to tear apart American democracy. They explain how these monuments idolize “The Lost Cause” of the south, especially with the social movement within recent years. Opponents of removing Confederate monuments say that the monuments are encapsulated with crucial history that future generations should fully understand, and not forget. They also explain that the removal of these monuments will not correct the inequalities within society, and that they showcase the social change that America has undergone through time.

He Said:

Confederate monuments should remain standing so that history can be preserved and taught so that the generations to come can learn from the rights and wrongs of history. They also showcase the positive progression of American social change. The removal of these monuments will do little to correct social injustices, as supporters say that it will do.

The history of the individual replicated in the monuments should be preserved, so that future generations can recognize the importance of the past, and build off of it. There is great importance to remembering history, even the darkest parts of it, so that it is never forgotten. The slogan “Never Forget” was coined after the horrific day of September 11, 2001, and can be applied to many of America’s events in the past, including the Confederacy. These monuments must be kept standing to serve as a reminder of history and to educate further generations the unmanipulated extent of our country’s story. The past cannot be changed, and many individuals are trying to create a distorted reality of America’s past. But in reality, the removal of Confederate monuments would only create an ignorant future.

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., a Civil War Union veteran and Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, remarked on Memorial Day in 1884: “I believe from the bottom of my heart that our memorial halls and statues and tablets, the tattered flags of our regiments gathered in the Statehouses, and this day with its funeral march and decorated graves, are worth more to our young men by way of chastening and inspiration than the monuments of another hundred years of peaceful life could be.” Here, Holmes specifically mentions monuments when explaining how critical it is for his successors to realize what happened in the past. In his testimony, he makes clear that the men of his generation, the men of the Civil War, will be gone soon. He expresses that accounts of history should be passed down to later generations, and offers his support of monuments, statues, and memorial halls to serve this purpose. Keeping Confederate monuments enables the remembrance of a very important aspect of American history, and the preservation of these monuments encapsulate history for generations to come.

Additionally, the history of the monuments themselves should be taken into account; many of the monuments that showcase Confederates were built during “The Monument Movement,” which began in the late nineteenth century and lasted into the early twentieth century. In both the North and the South, monuments were erected to serve as a community testimonial to those who fought in the American Civil War, many of whom were dying off. These monuments served as tributes to the men and boys that fought during the war, and played an important role in the remembrance of the war among small communities in both the North and South (The Federalist). Many of the Confederate monuments in the United States are at least 100 years old, and are a piece of history in and of themselves.

Edward Orde — A 1924 monument located in Wilmington, North Carolina. Represented is a Confederate soldier standing over a wounded comrade. (Wikipedia)

These monuments do not commemorate slavery or racism, nor should they. Instead their purpose is to act as a catalyst of remembrance to the hundreds of thousands of soldiers who died during America’s bloodiest war. The opposing argument claims that Confederate monuments were systematically placed in the south to oppress and offend minorities during the era of Jim Crow Laws. However, monuments were also erected in the north, during a time in which political machines ruled and took advantage of minorities in northern cities. Remembering the history behind the individuals and the history and purpose behind the monuments themselves is pivotal.

A major factor in why the debate of removing Confederate monuments has arised is due to the societal embracement of a woke standard and the acceptance and promotion of “cancel culture.” Today, certain groups of people seek to “cancel” individuals from the past because what they did or the values they held are not accepted today. It is unfair to hold someone that was born in the early nineteenth century to the social norms that are valued today. And due to this, some of history’s most influential figures are being questioned, not only Confederate leaders. The sad “woke” culture of today has gotten out of control; if Confederate monuments are torn down due to their “political incorrectness,” what is to come next?

As this debate has intensified in recent months, it has not just been the monuments of the Confederate soldiers and sailors removed. We have seen the full extent of the agenda behind removing Confederate monuments. Christopher Columbus was thrown into a lake, Lincoln was destroyed, Roosevelt toppled, Jackson came down, and Washington and Jefferson were brought down on Juneteenth because they owned slaves. When does this stop? Who would have thought that any of these individuals would have been vandalized and removed? This all shows how things can spiral out of control and how history’s greatest figures can become victims to an unknowledgeable generation toppling down statues without even knowing the history behind them.

The removal of these statues all started with the normalization of the removal of Confederate monuments and the promotion of canceling politically incorrect icons. Removing them could very well be the prerequisite to iconoclasm, and the agenda of removing key figures in American history with flaws that contradict modern standards and public opinions.

Infogram — A study presented from NPR/PBS in regards to Confederate monuments.

All opinions aside, many polls clearly indicate that the majority of the American public does not support the removal of monuments highlighting figures of the Confederacy. According to a NPR/PBS NewsHour poll, 62% of those polled asserted that Confederate monuments should remain, compared to just 27% that argued they should be removed. This is well outside any margin of error due to the fact that a supermajority has been obtained. A key factor in these polls was that of the African-American community; 44% believe that they should stay, compared to 40% who say that they should be removed. And to be clear, the masses of groups calling for the removal of Confederate monuments argue that they commemorate slavery, and upset and offend African-Americans.

Andrew Young, former Atlanta Mayor and a career African-American civil rights activist that worked alongside Martin Luther King, agrees that Confederate statues should be kept (NPR). Referencing the younger African-Americans who are demanding the removal of Confederate statues, Young stated: “These are kids who grew up free, and they don’t realize what still enslaves them — and it’s not those monuments.”

Confederate monuments can be used to move into the future, while remembering the past at the same time. The generations of tomorrow can be taught with these statues, and informed about the real history behind them, and the statues could even be put into context. They can learn how the United States should move forward, building off of the wrongs of the past.

While attending the opening of the National Museum of African American History and Culture, President George W. Bush stated that “A great nation does not hide its history, it faces its flaws and corrects them.” His words exemplify how the United States should recognize its history, and how Confederate monuments should serve as a reminder to all how crucial it is to fight against racism and the wrongs that happened in the past, while ensuring that they do not happen in the future.

The entire argument for removing monuments showcasing Confederate figures deals with the claim that they promote slavery and racism; but what will removing a military general who was been dead for 150 years do anything? This only takes away from real social issues and racial inequalities that plague modern society. Steps towards greater equality and an era in which racism is terminated in America does not start with the removal of history and Confederate monuments.

She Said:

Throughout the United States, especially this past year, the call for change and the Black Lives Matter movement have become a focal point of conversation. Legislation, social change, and overall progression to acknowledging the truth behind American history has begun. As a society we are moving toward a collective perspective that celebrates both the white side of history as well as the hard work of people of color and minorities throughout our time as a nation.

Recently, debate has sparked around Confederate monuments that were built across the United States when the reversal of the Civil Rights movement started. As Jim Crow laws and black codes were placed into legislation, statues of oppressors and Confederate leaders like Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee were erected. Throughout 2020, especially at Black Lives Matter protests and general civil rights movements, the statues commemorating these men have been torn down. This has created unwieldy uproar from both sides of the argument as American history and the progression of our nation is brought into question.

Ultimately, these monuments do not represent America and should be torn down. These monuments represent Confederate insurgents who fought mainly for slavery. These people are not American heroes. The nearly catastrophic divide between the United States over the right to own slaves was almost the downfall of this great nation, why would we have monuments celebrating these men who tried to commit treason?

Business Insider offers an invaluable point, “…the statues perpetuate the “Lost Cause” mythology that romanticizes slavery and promotes the honor of the Confederate cause.” The counter believes that the removal of these monuments will lead to a complete erasal of history. This is simply untrue. By removing these statues we are correcting what American’s publicly memorialize and support. We do not support racist and bigots and the romanticization of these leaders. The promotion of this “Lost Cause” fuels this notion that the south during this time was noble and brave. The Confederates must be recognized as they are, traitors. History is taught in the classroom, from kindergarten to university. To idolize these insurgents and white supremacists on public land goes far beyond a history lesson. The United States continuously calls itself the land of the free but at a point it was the home of the enslaved and as a society we are moving towards the recognition of the latter.

Ryan M. Kelly — Crowds gather after days of protesting Confederate monuments.

It is important to not only look at what these statues are intended to represent but what they legitimately symbolize. Karen Cox, a New York Times Op-ed contributor says this, “the Charlottesville march, with its hundreds of neo-Nazis and white nationalists coming out to defend the memory of General Lee, puts the lie to the notion that, as the apologists say, these monuments are about “heritage, not hate.” Although these statues are argued to feature history and act as a reminder of our gruesome past the reality is that they are used as a consistent motif of hatred. A constant reminder that racism in America is live and well. White nationalists as Cox mentioned have latched onto these statues as a way of preserving their hatred and racism. For this reason alone, the monuments should be taken down. American public land has no place for symbols of hate and oppression that spark support from neo-Nazis and white supremacists.

I now look at a Facebook Live of Amanda Chase, a Republican Senator from Virginia, she expresses how, “‘It’s all about shoving this down people’s throats and erasing the history of the white people,’”(Business Insider). This “white” history cannot be idolized as it has been through these monuments. Yes, this history includes innovation and the American spirit but this white history also includes slavery and the oppression of minorities without a balanced perspective. The torture and cruelty the white man imposed on thousands of slaves should never be celebrated, but instead taught in our classrooms and universities as a warning to future generations. We must grow from this history, not memorialize it and pretend it represents something it’s not.

The counter consistently states how these monuments serve as a history lesson but how accurate is this lesson? The men being celebrated are all of one group, white males with power. During this period of acknowledgement, the chance of seeing a minority erected was close to none. Women throughout history have been consistently looked down upon.

The argument to remove all slave owners goes further than that of the Confederate monuments. George Washington for example, was a slave owner but his contribution to America was far greater. The measure of a historical figure’s importance and contribution to America is what should be considered. A Confederate rebel and insurgent whose beliefs were rooted in segregation and white supremacy should not be celebrated and monumentalized on public land. George Washington, arguably one of the most important men in American History, is a perfect example of a person who should be celebrated as opposed to a Confederate insurgent.

Within this argument I find it interesting how much gravity people put on monuments as the sole contributors to history and their lessons. Does Germany have Adolf Hitler monuments and Nazi symbols on public land to remember their history? No, of course not. We are taught about Hitler and the Nazis, but they are not commemorated or remembered on public land as German historical figures. Confederates and white supremacists who fought to tear America apart should not be commemorated. I agree, their history should not be forgotten but public displays of idolization is not how America remembers bigots.

The American people are unsure on how to move forward. This isn’t a simple yes or no argument. Winthrop poll director, Scott Huffman says this, “… 56 percent want to do something other than simply leave the monuments and statues as they are, but these folks are very divided on what should be done,” (Associated Press). At this point, the acknowledgment that some sort of change has to happen is clear. The American people recognize the time to reconcile our wrongs and truly learn from our past.

Conclusion:

The continuous debate over Confederate monuments only highlights the voice of the American people. As a nation, we are having an open discussion about our past, acknowledging our faults, and contriving solutions of how to move forward. There are many ways to tackle this issue while ensuring that the integrity of our history is preserved.

One such compromise would be to move these historic statues to scholarly institutions or museums. The history and age of the monument would be protected but the monument would be used as an educational tool as opposed to a public display.

Another possible solution would be the addition of a plaque that details the history, honorable and dishonorable, of the person being monumentalized. The plaque would give the history behind the monument and the individual, and move away from a direct remembrance into a teachable lesson.

Finally, the last solution would be the addition of monuments that feature minorities that would not have been commemorated during their time. These monuments would teach history by featuring the individuals in the same light as the statues of Robert E. Lee and other Confederates.

As a country, it is a necessity to recognize our history as we progress into the future. Confederate monuments serve as a reminder of America’s past, and our need to constantly evolve. As President Theodore Roosevelt said, “The more you know about the past, the better prepared you are for the future.”

Emma Blankenship

The purpose of the series “He Said, She Said” is to create a respectful environment for differing stances on current controversial issues.

He Said, She Said: Court Packing

Abigail Gallup and Colin Donegan

The purpose of the series “He Said, She Said” is to create a respectful environment for differing stances on current controversial issues.

Introduction:

Months ago, former President Donald J. Trump nominated Federal Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States. She was confirmed to the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice on October 27th, 2020. The addition of Justice Barrett contributed to a 6:3 conservative majority.

Supreme Court Packing (Photos: Mark Wilson, Ken Heinen & Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images; Illustration: Ian Hurley/Pacific Standard)

There is no text in the Constitution that prevents the addition of Supreme Court justices, but Congress can change this by advancing an act that has to be signed by the sitting president. The first incarnation of the Supreme Court was established with the passing of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which issued six justices to the high court. The number of justices on the Supreme Court shifted in the early nineteenth century during the presidencies of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. During the mid-nineteenth century, the justice count on the Supreme Court fluctuated, and eventually returned to the count of nine justices that we have today. President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill in 1937, which suggested the addition of justices to the Supreme Court, but this plan ultimately failed.

Supporters say that packing the court will ensure that the unethical promotion of Justice Barrett will not undermine the democratic principles of the United States. Opponents say, court packing is a radical proposal to unfairly overthrow the partisan majority of the court that was achieved justly and through due process.

He Said:

Court packing is a ridiculous attempt to gain political power unjustly and a last minute solution to dissolve a fair and just majority. During his tenure, former President Trump had the full right to nominate Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States. He fairly did this within the boundaries of his power as president, therefore legally changing the makeup of the court in the favor of the Republican Party. Outraged by the president’s opportunities and actions of appointing three justices to the high court in one term, many support court packing in order to balance out the party demographics of the justices. However, this “cheats” the system in order to increase political power, no matter which political party attempts this.

In order to better understand the absurdity of court packing, I’ll use an analogy. Imagine you are playing your favorite game, and you are losing. Instead of waiting until you will have leverage over your opponent, you just rewrite the rules of the game in order to win. The same can be said about court packing; the Democrats have realized that they are losing the game that is the Supreme Court due to the fact that Republican justices outnumber them by double. Instead of waiting until they are in power, Democrats propose rewriting the rules and adding additional justices unjustly in order to win the “game.”

If either party turns to court packing as their solution to “fixing” one party’s majority, they will undermine the democratic principles of justice and the judiciary-the system that was put in place to resolve conflict and legal disputes. In essence, the goal of court packing was to change the political makeup of the court, and the contradictory solution is by adding more partisan justices, now just in one party’s favor. Therefore, the United States must firmly keep its nine justice Supreme Court, in order to prevent political games from threatening and overthrowing the fair majority of the court. The traditional demographics should be ensured, and one party should not be given additional justices on the court for the mere reason they are down a few in a fair system.

As many political leaders have pointed out, packing the Supreme Court is just another absurd partisan attempt. Texas Senator Ted Cruz warned Americans to not “be fooled by Democrats’ hyperbolic rhetoric,” and explained that “packing the court means one very specific thing: expanding the number of justices to achieve a political outcome. It is wrong. It is an abuse of power.” As highlighted by Cruz, court packing is an unjust, last minute, attempt to gain power unlawfully.

The Supreme Court of the United States (Robert Alexander/Getty Images)

Additionally, even Senator Joe Biden denounced court packing. In a 1983 hearing, Biden called President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s attempt to pack the Supreme Court a “bonehead idea.” He continued by stating that it was: “a terrible, terrible mistake to make, and it put in question, for an entire decade, the independence of the most significant body—including the Congress in my view—the most significant body in this country, the Supreme Court of the United States of America.” As Biden called attention to in this statement, packing the court would also threaten the balance and separation of powers, to which this country’s governmental systems so heavily rely on. Building off of history, Biden’s quote shows that some Democrats also view court packing as an unnecessary manipulation to acquire political advantages.

Although opponents would argue that packing the court is not a new idea, they usually fail to mention the fact that it still remains a radical idea. Currently, packing the court is only supported by only the most progressive members of the Democratic Party. Radical left-wing representatives like “Squad” members Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar are some of the only Democrats that openly support court packing. The reason that the mainstream Democratic party does not support court packing is because they know that it is a preposterous and unjust proposition that could cost them political power. This was seen in the results of the 2020 Congressional Elections, where Democrats came very close to losing their majority in the House of Representatives. The fact that court packing remains a progressive ideology favored by few, shows how uncommon and abnormal it really is, and reiterates my argument to how it should never belong in our republic.

The opposing argument often claims that the American people should decide the fate of the Supreme Court, and whether to add additional justices or not. Just like any other president in history, former President Trump had the full rights to appoint justices to the court that fit within his beliefs. In other words, it has been tradition that Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President of the United States, who was elected by the people to represent them for four years, not three and a half. In a New York Times and Siena College poll, 58% of respondents stated that the size of the court should not be increased, where just 31% responded that the court should be filled with additional justices. So if you were to let the American people decide whether to pack the Supreme Court of the United States, they would overwhelmingly denounce it, as seen through these statistics which numbers well outside the poll’s margins of error.

Adversaries frequently speculate on how the confirmation of Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett would affect certain groups of people. Going off topic, they conjecture on the potential decisions that the credible academic may make on the bench, instead of citing solid reasons why packing the court would be beneficial.

The Federalist Papers, 1787 (Cherry Hill Publishing)

Court packing would also sabotage the process of judicial review, whose role is featured prominently in Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist No. 78. The opposition claims that this information is outdated, but I beg to differ. Hamilton, along with the other great minds that built this country, established and proposed ideas for some of the most important institutions today, and their accomplishments and wise ideas paved the way for generations to come and are still applicable to modern day problems.

As seen in the evidence and analysis above, court packing theory blatantly disregards the visions that the founding fathers had for our great constitutional republic. After all, the Supreme Court of the United States has had a total of nine justices since 1869, so why change it now over 150 years later? The late liberal Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that “Nine [Justices] seems to be a good number. It’s been that way for a long time.”

She Said:

After serving a remarkable thirteen years on the Supreme Court, the Honorable Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been replaced with the controversial Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Regardless of the current president, the issue regarding packing the court faces two obstacles, one being the realistic ability to pass an increase in justices, and secondly, the morality of the decision. Court packing is a historical decision but one that will ensure that the American people have their voice heard and represented through the Supreme Court.

What some call a “changing of the rules” has already been established through written legislation submitted by Franklin D. Roosevelt. Although this did not pass, the concept of adding up to 15 justices has already seen support. Packing the court is by no way a new or radical idea, as this concept was not only seen, but supported in 1937. The change of legislation and addition of justices is the natural evolution of a democratic state. This evolution is inevitable, especially in such turbulent times when civil rights and women’s rights are at the forefront of the conversation. As former President Trump stated, “What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.” The people are being met with a new twist of fate and we must respond accordingly. The application of this legislation would undoubtedly meet opposition from the congressional committee as well as the general public, but we must pursue this line of inquiry.

Regardless of the possibility of accomplishment we must address the ethical question. This kind of question is hard to address, but I look to the general behavior of the two parties for an answer. The opponent clearly supports the idea that packing the court is an unethical changing of the rules. Their analogy is nothing more than a logical fallacy.

Protestors in support of court-packing (Jeff Malet/Newscom via ZUMA)

This analogy employs a false equivalency, relating the Supreme Court to a game which can be won or lost and the Constitution to the rules of said game. The court has not been changed in 150+ years, so it’s clear that this complex issue goes far beyond a winner and a loser. The Supreme Court is not something to be won but it is something to be honored with respect and reserve with a focus on nonpartisan justices. The comparison of the highest court to a simplified game is not only unfair but shows a lack of judgement. What the adversary fails to mention is that the initial “rules” that were set for Obama were then dismissed for Trump. I propose this question, have you ever played a game where the referee changes the rules half way through? In the beginning half of this hypothetical game, former President Obama was refused an appointment nine months before the election date. This decision was made on the basis that the next president should elect the justice to give the people an indirect say in the nomination process. In the second half of the game, the referee, in this case the Senate, allowed for Trump to appoint a justice during the election. In this analogy, the initial rules were altered to favor former President Trump, so no wonder the other “team” seeks to right the wrong through the packing of the court.

“The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let’s give them a voice. Let’s let the American people decide,” Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate majority leader, declared when Obama sought to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. There is no written rule that determines the applicable timeline to the nomination of a justice. During the 2016 election the precedent was set that a nominee could not be appointed within a year of the election. Lindsay Graham, a head Republican Senator explicitly stated that, “We are setting a precedent here today, Republicans are, that in the last year… you’re not going to fill a vacancy of the Supreme Court.” Furthermore, Lindsay Graham goes as far as to say, “That’s going to be the new rule. When y’all changed the rules… I thought it was a really abuse of power.” This quote speaks for itself, the appointment of this justice during an election was an abuse of power.

Within weeks of the 2020 election, that precedent was dismissed and the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett was accepted. This hypocrisy and denial of precedent only highlights the “changing of the rules.” So let us answer that call. Let us, the American people, decide the legislation and ultimate fate of this country.

Former President Trump nominated and approved a conservative justice just weeks before an increasingly divisive election in which he would lose, and refuses to admit defeat. Let’s not pretend that the nomination of Justice Barrett was anything but the last political Hail Mary before a close and tense campaign in which Donald J. Trump would lose.

The Supreme Court (Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images)

The Americans have the right to vote in a president who nominates the justice to represent the United States, not just the ideals of the Republican Party. The argument could be made that if Donald Trump had won the election he had every right to nominate this Justice, but he didn’t. He did not win, and the American people have spoken. The majority of the country, both in electoral votes and popular votes, do not want Donald Trump to lead the U.S., which includes the responsibility to select justices.

In the opponents previously said argument, there is a hyperfixation to conserve this distorted version of what our Founding Fathers wanted for our country. The time for change is now, and we the people have a fundamental duty to carry out what our Founding Fathers wanted in application to modern time. As James Madison historically remarked in his Report of a Constitution or Form of Government in the year 1779, “Government is instituted for the common good…” and “not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any man, family, or class of men.” Furthermore, the diversity of representation seen within our current political climate is drastically different from that of the white, male, land owning population that the Founding Fathers accommodated when writing our Constitution. It is the God given right to vote and to be heard and that is the power of the American people.

The opponents evidence embodies The Federalist Papers written in 1788 and an oversimplified version of the Supreme Court. The use of the word “radical” and the fear mongering that Ted Cruz and Donald Trump are notorious for will not stand. The issue of packing the court exceeds a party issue but goes to the standing of America’s democratic foundation. It is not our place to assume the standings of the American people nor is it the place to divide this country further.

No longer will the American voice be disparaged. The packing of the court should undergo a direct referendum to reflect the voice of the American people, the voice that was dismissed by our incumbent President Donald Trump. Whether the American people decide for or against packing the court, our voice will be heard. According to Gallup Polls, 46% percent of people are not in favor of the Amy Coney Barrett nomination. This 46% percent is the highest disapproval rate in thirty three years. This poll only highlights the political division between our people. Let’s not assume the position of Americans, let’s offer a direct referendum which would give the opportunity to embody what the citizens of the United States want.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett (Rachel Malehor)

Amy Coney Barrett was Donald Trump’s choice, not the American peoples and now it is our time to protect the values of both the majority and minorities that create the diversity so celebrated by the American people. Change is natural with the progression of time, and this change will protect the lives and validity of minority groups and the free voice that Americans have fought so hard to keep.

Conclusion:

As the late Senator John Lewis famously said, “Democracy is not a state. It is an act,” It is the responsibility of the United States to create legislation that favors the majority. In order to find this majority we must compromise. Common ground is the foundation for a good compromise. Our compromise may start with maximum caps on term lengths, a higher dependency on smaller circuit panels to rule on a higher number of cases, and the removal of partisan politics from the Supreme Court altogether.

A possible change would be the addition of term caps which would limit the number of years a sitting judge can serve as well as the inability to be reelected. This would help to prevent and possibly remove party bias from those sitting on the court.

Oftentimes cases sit in line and are ignored by the Supreme Court because of the lack of space and lower level conflict. With the addition of smaller circuit courts these sitting cases can be judged and the overall judicial system will work in further cooperation.

Another possible settlement would be the removal of justices that directly associate with a political party. Although this leans closer to the unrealistic side of solutions, this would help to alleviate partisan tensions and operations, and increase the justices adherence to the Constitution rather than their political party.

The beauty of a democracy lies within the convergence of differing opinions to meet at a majority ruled agreement. These compromises fund the growth and development of the United States and it is invaluable to the democratic processes of our great republic.