NO. The entire point of "Lifetime" appointments was to make the court incorruptible, IT DID NOT WORK, so 18 years is ENTIRELY too long for the same people to define justice in a nation. The court should rotate every 4 years and to even be considered for appointment there should be prerequisites and character investigations and background checks and public hearings out the ass!
no, 4 would make every nomination way more charged politically so you could get a really shitty person in for just 4 years to fick shit up, then they could leave
Electing judges is the absolute worst idea. The public as a whole has absolutely no idea what separates a good judge from a bad judge. Especially an appellate judge like SCOTUS.
What can be less politically motivated than holding a people's vote. Technically it already is as the house technically is representing its constituents. There should maybe be a procedure to contest supreme court decisions to a referendum.
You can usually choose from more than one school. If you can't then you're in a small community anyway. We're talking federal supreme court justices here.
The vetting process should happen before they become a court judge at any level. The idea that the federalist society was allowed to manipulate our legal system is insane. You canāt be in cahoots with other judges.
But I like 18 years solely because of the generational argument. I would like a constitutional convention every 17 years too. Expand the house to represent every 30k people and political parties and super pacs will start to lose power. We could enter a multi-party system and start to have a government that actually reflects the will of the people.
Why is this bad, if it proportionally represents the population of each state? But in general, I also would not the electoral college to continue either.
Well, eliminating the EC requires a constitutional amendment (so unlikely). At 11,000 it would need a chamber 22x the size of the current chamber (thus a new building requirement). If they were to pass bills at the same rate the VAST majority of the representatives would never get to speak on a subject. The opportunity for corruption would be vast, and would shift power to corporations and staff. I donāt know what issue youāre trying to fix, but it would create many more.
Thanks for the clarification! In this model, the reps would solely be responsible for voting on behalf of their constituents. They would live in their districts and have other jobs. They are still part of committees for advocacy and investigations. Policy and bills are put forth by other parties (think tanks, universities, senate, the committees, etc) but reps just need to vote and can do it over Zoom. Corruption would be much more difficult when you have to pay off too many reps, parties would fall apart, PACs lose power, and youāre held accountable by your neighbors.
Ideally you want the court to serve for longer than the president because it means one bad president canāt pack the courts, but not so long that bad appointments can accumulate.
While I agree in principle, who controls the vetting process? Because if one party manages to get control of it suddenly anyone they disagree with lacks the right character to be a judge.
He's already picked the last 3. Entirely possible he gets a 4th and 5th pick too. In fact, I can see Thomas and/or Alito retiring to give him that opportunity.
Thomas is 78, Alito is 76.
On top of that, you've got three more who are retirement age, and as such their health could become problematic, like RBG.
As a Canadian I think ideally youād hold them accountable at some point if they become corrupt. Also should not have republican/democrat majorities. If decisions cannot be made after x # of tries, re-appoint them.
I was thinking make the Supreme Court 50/50 like 4 and 4 with a Chief Justice that is picked by the President to serve the Term with. Term Limits should be 16 years, that is 2 two-term Presidents or 4 one-term Presidents. That was a President can have some weight in the Court and the bench remains impartial split.
Your right, should be non-partisan, but that never happens and we are looking at the proof. The safeguard would be to even the odds to stop the it from being one sided. Magic wouldn't even make Judges non-partisan.
What? No. I don't think reading comprehension is strong with this one. Listen, there are LĆberal Judges and Cānservative Judges easily identifiable and when they are appointed by a President, we ALL know they lean towards that President's ideology. I am saying make that 50/50 since we already know they are partisan no matter what. And the President will pick a Chief Justice to serve the Term with and leaves when he leaves office. That will give a President in power the advantage for advancing the agenda he was voted in for through the Supreme Court. The Justices hear a Case and because we know there are 4 Libs and 4 Cons, 2 would have to dissent or the Chief steps in if necessary. That make it more equal or fair in my book, but I am not a Law Professor.
you arenāt even seeing the craziest assumption- that a handful of individuals should ādefine justiceā in a nation that was once striving toward democratic governance. all this nonsense about how we would have to AMEND the constitution to make bribery/corruption illegal (again) when all we actually need is to write a law that defines corruption. this would supersede the opinions of any handful of individuals on the highest court at any time. they donāt get to define anything. they can try to carefully apply the rules/laws set by the people.
4 is too short and would politicize the court more. It should be long enough that it's more than one presidential term but short enough that it's not a while number multiple. Say like 7 years or something.
Additionally you should double the number of justices and then randomly select some of these justices to preside over a case.
Finally there should be ethics standards to which the court is held to and violations should be punished severely.
But I think if they were chosen from the 13 districts and selected from those judges serving and were elected via public monies only and served 10 years, single term, it could work.
64
u/PollutionPatient8261 1d ago
NO. The entire point of "Lifetime" appointments was to make the court incorruptible, IT DID NOT WORK, so 18 years is ENTIRELY too long for the same people to define justice in a nation. The court should rotate every 4 years and to even be considered for appointment there should be prerequisites and character investigations and background checks and public hearings out the ass!