Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-179_o75q.pdf
Page Number: 30

6 

UNITED STATES v. HANSEN 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

ment in such a council would foster internal biases”).  Op-
ponents thus concluded that to include judges in the policy 
decisions  inherent  in  the  legislative  process  would  be  a 
“dangerous innovation,” one that would erode public confi-
dence in their ability to perform their “proper official char-
acter.”    2  Farrand  75–76  (L.  Martin);  see  also  id.,  at  77 
(“[T]he  Supreme  Judiciary  should  have  the  confidence  of 
the people.  This will soon be lost, if they are employed in 
the task of remonstrating ag[ainst] popular measures of the 
Legislature”). 
  The  later  history  of  the  New  York  Council  of  Revision 
demonstrates  the  wisdom  of  the  Framers’  decision.    The 
Council naturally became politicized through its intrusive 
involvement in the legislative process.  Over the course of 
its existence, it returned 169 bills to the legislature; the leg-
islature, in turn, overrode only 51 of those vetoes and reen-
acted at least 26 bills with modifications.  Barry 245.  More-
over,  “[t]he  Council  did  not  shrink  from  tough  stands  on 
controversial or politically charged issues.”  Id., at 246.  For 
example, early in its existence, it vetoed a bill barring those 
convicted  of  adultery  from  remarrying  and  one  that  de-
clared Loyalists aliens.  Ibid.  Decades later, it very nearly 
blocked  the  bill  authorizing  the  Erie  Canal’s  construction 
for  policy  reasons.    P.  Bernstein,  Wedding  of  the  Waters: 
The Erie Canal and the Making of a Great Nation 197–199 
(2005).  Some members of the Council opposed the bill due 
to “concern[s] about committing the state to this huge pro-
ject  before  public  opinion  was  more  clearly  and  more  em-
phatically  in  favor.”    Id.,  at  198.    Others  were  concerned 
that  the  legislation  gave  the  canal  commission  arbitrary 
powers.   Ibid.   The  canal  legislation—one  of  the most  im-
portant  measures  in  the  Nation’s  history—survived  the 
Council’s  review  only  because  Chancellor  James  Kent 
changed his deciding vote at the last minute, seemingly on 
a whim.  Id., at 199. 
  The  Council  contributed  to  its  own  abolition  in  1820,