Older is Wiser, but Does that Apply to the Courts?
Chapter 14 is about the Courts. The judicial branch, most especially the Supreme Court, assesses the legitimacy of actions taken by the other two branches and by the states in the context of the Constitution. While the purpose of the Supreme Court is to uphold democracy, if federal judges are too isolated from popular influence, democracy is at risk.
Recently, Facebook’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, began the first of two hearings in Washington answering difficult questions on the company’s mishandling of data. Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting firm linked to the Trump Campaign, harvested the data of 87 million facebook users to psychologically profile voters for the 2016 presidential election. In his first appearance before Congress, Zuckerberg faced hours of questioning from lawmakers regarding how third party partners were able to get data without user’s knowledge, the proliferation of fake news on Facebook, Russian interference during the 2016 presidential election, and censorship of conservative media. If the Facebook trial were to continue and reach the Supreme Court, the isolation of the judges from popular influence due to declining health because of age and the misunderstanding of modern technology because of age could cause Democracy to break down. The isolation of the justices will prohibit the American people and their desires to be properly represented in Supreme Court’s ruling.
As the textbook states, Courts might be out of touch with the mood of the country for long periods of time because judges on federal district and circuit courts and justices on the Supreme Court serve life terms and are slow to be replaced. The top positions in the Supreme Court are held more and more by people in their 70s or above. At these ages, disruptive medical tragedies are unavoidable and the risk that key political actors will develop cognitive impairment heightens. The older our judges and politicians become, the higher the probability of illness or death within their ranks. If justices are forced to focus on their health, they will be unable to devote all of their attention to the case at hand. The validity of the justices’ rulings could be put into question.
Additionally, as can be seen through email and smartphones it cannot be disputed that justices have a terrible track record when it comes to understanding modern technology. Through past cases, it is evident that justices struggle with email. While Americans spend a lot of time at work sifting through their email inboxes, Supreme Court justices do not use email at work. Instead, justices prefer to communicate via written memo. Supreme Court justices also struggle with smartphones. Several cases in the Supreme Court have highlighted exactly how little justices understand about modern smartphones. Chief Justice Roberts, for example, insinuated that a person carrying two cell phones might reasonably be suspected of dealing drugs. Consequently, judges often misunderstand the technological implications that are at stake.
Dahlia Lithwick in the New Republic argues that justices are no longer equipped to understand how their decisions affect average Americans. While Lithwick argues that this is because the court as a whole has gotten too smart, I argue that this is because as the justices age, they become isolated from popular influence. The Supreme Court is not acting as a true representative institution and as the world continues to turn and technology advances, this problem will only become more apparent. Something has to be done, but what? Is the solution to this problem as simple as creating term limitations?
https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/11/supreme-court-0
http://www.shakelaw.com/blog/supreme-court-judges-tech/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/us/politics/mark-zuckerberg-testimony.html