Bio: Richard Zacaroli has served for over 30 years on boards of non-governmental organisations in the education, cultural exchange, community development, and finance sectors. He is Chair of the board of directors for Greenheart International, and a Pual Harris Fellow with Rotary International. Rich is a frequent guest lecturer at CSU-Sacramento and has authored numerous articles focused on the socio-political environment in the U.S. Rich and his wife Lori live in Sacramento, California. They have a blended family of five children and twelve grandchildren.
The Analyst: You recently wrote an article talking about how the expansion of the Supreme Court would actually do more harm than good. You wrote that, instead of expanding the Court by four seats, two should be added. Another route that many people have mentioned is removing the lifetime service of Supreme Court Justices, and allowing Justices to be changed after a certain duration. What do you think about this?
Richard Zacaroli: I would say that could be an additional route, but not a singular solution. I do believe that balancing the Supreme Court by adding two seats would be a good idea, but I also agree that putting durations on terms that the Justices can serve makes a lot of sense. It has to be a fixed duration, whatever it’s going to be – eight years, 12 years, 20 years. While 12-15 years makes most sense, it just cannot be arbitrary, and Justices cannot be removed by vote of the Senate on any kind of arbitrary basis. As long as Justice’s terms are fixed they can’t be politicized. I would also say that if you did have fixed durations for Justices, that would allow much more time to vet the right candidates who represent a majority of American opinion and thought.
The Analyst: Do you think the process in which the Supreme Court Justices are put into place is very politicized? And if so how can we minimize the effect of politicization of Supreme Court Justice nominations in the coming years?
Richard Zacaroli: I think the process has been very politicized, particularly for the past two Justices; the refusal of the Republican-led Senate to consider President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland for a full year in 2016, as well as in the rushing of Amy Coney Barrett to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In my opinion, these were highly politicized. I think a way to minimize the politicization of the process is, first, to require two thirds of the Senate to confirm Supreme Court Justices. That would assure that there is consensus among Republicans and Democrats on Supreme Court Justices who are confirmed. Second, require a fixed period of time, perhaps 90 days, within which a Supreme Court Justice must be nominated and confirmed. I would also say that the Senate should not be allowed to have confirmation hearings on a Supreme Court Justice perhaps 90 days before a national election. These are definitely ways that the process can be depoliticized.
The Analyst: You mentioned in your article that four out of the nine current Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Presidents that had lost the popular vote, and therefore it could be argued that they don’t represent the American people. In your opinion, do you think that a President who didn’t win the popular vote should be given the authority and power to decide a lifelong government position, such as a Supreme Court Justice?
Richard Zacaroli: Yes, absolutely. I don’t think any changes should be made in that regard. Let’s put it this way, if you have a President who passed away during his term and the Vice President assumes the presidency, you can’t stop the process of nominating Supreme Court Justices. Similarly, our political system is such that, occasionally we may have Presidents who didn’t win the popular vote but still won the electoral college vote, as has happened twice in the past 20 years. You cannot stop the Supreme Court nomination process because of that. I personally think that more of the politicization of the process is taking place in the Senate, and not the Office of the President.
The Analyst: Would it be a feasible solution in the future to dictate that no more than four Justices could be conservatives, no more than four could be liberal, and one must at all times be a moderate, in order to avoid the current 6-3 predicament, as well as removing the President and his party’s bias when nominating a judge?
Richard Zacaroli: I think something like that could make sense, but it would be difficult to manage. For example, if you’ve got a Republican-led Senate and a Supreme Court Justice who was very liberal passes away or retires, it’s going to be very difficult to get another Supreme Court Justice who is liberal through the confirmation process. I think the more effective and straightforward way of doing it is requiring ⅔ of the Senate to confirm Supreme Court Justices. In that way, it’s going to be pretty much assured that you will have Republican and Democrat consensus for the candidate, and that in itself is going to bring the Supreme Court more toward a moderate orientation that is representative of where America is ideologically.
The Analyst: Why do you think that, currently, there is not that sort of rule implemented for the ⅔ majority, whereas in other political practices, we see that simple majority rule is needed from the Senate?
Richard Zacaroli: The Senate process is broken in that regard, you know, with the filibuster rule and other things. I think it makes sense that a simple majority of the Senate is needed to confirm certain legislation such as the federal budget, but appointment of Supreme Court justices goes to the very fabric of our society. The Court is ruling on issues that can become really personal to all Americans, right? And therefore I think the confirmation of Supreme Court justices above any other legislative decision really should be vetted and when confirmed, represent what a majority of Americans believe. That can only be achieved if you’ve got consensus among both Democrats and Republicans, which can be achieved by requiring a supermajority of ⅔ of the Senate.
The Analyst: In the past couple of years, we have seen the unfolding of a highly polarized America, especially after the four years under Former President, Donald Trump’s time in office. You yourself have a lot of experience working with various individuals, domestically and internationally, what would you say is a good argument in order to convince Americans that despite what the media portrays, America is still a moderate state?
Richard Zacaroli: So that’s a very good question, a complex one with complex answers. When Americans do come together, from both sides, and all of the polls indicate this, Americans generally agree on the paths that we should be taking as a nation regarding the issues that most affect our lives such as health care, immigration, environment, gun control, racial and social equality. Polarization occurs when the biased media machine magnifies different perspectives. I think that one thing we should encourage people to get out of their comfort zones, watch, read and listen to unbiased news sources that just present the news without opinions and a lot of hyperbole. This will allow people to form their own opinions. Another approach could be broadcast and published forums, with real people talking to real people on both sides of that debate, not politicians. People will realise that we as Americans are more united than we are divided in this country when it comes to the major issues. People need to at least hear the other side. On most issues they are going to realise that it is not that different from what they think, or that at least compromise is possible.
Recent Comments