We were appointed to the federal bench by presidents of different parties. One of us was nominated by President Ronald Reagan; the other by President Bill Clinton. We have not agreed on every legal or political question.
But on this Constitution Day, we agree on something more fundamental. We are worried about the health of the Constitution that we both swore an oath to support and defend. That is not a statement we make lightly.
On Sept. 17, 1787, the delegates in Philadelphia signed a Constitution built around a simple but profound idea: Power in America would be divided. No president, Congress, court or political majority would control everything. Each branch would possess authority of its own, and each would constrain the others.
The friction was intentional. Americans have argued over the boundaries of those powers since 1787. That argument is not a weakness of our constitutional system.
It is part of the system. What concerns us today is something bigger than political differences. The guardrails surrounding our disagreements are weakening, and judges are paying the price.
Judges are increasingly portrayed not as public servants applying the law, but as political combatants. Court decisions are too often treated as legitimate only when they produce the desired political result. Judges face calls for retaliation and removal because of their rulings.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
