General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsany thoughts on a better way to select a supreme court judge?
I've often wondered if it's even possible to change the way it's done now. That lifetime guarantee position seems a little unfair, because other government positions are limited. What would the process be to undo this? and would we want to?
hlthe2b
(102,419 posts)develop a panel of retired Federal appelate judge to review conflict of interests and make the Supreme Court justices subject to removal if they fail to follow those guidelines.
ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)Only one justice has ever been impeached. It's time to make impeachment a real threat. So far this has been the "forgotten option". Should include ethics violations, too, and be made retroactive. Then, finally, Thomas can be removed.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,900 posts)The reason for the lifetime appointment is so judges would be less influenced by politics than if they had to run for the office.
bluestarone
(17,067 posts)I'm thinking that years in advance Names of possible judges should be put in some type folder THEN when one is needed take and put names in a hat and let President draw one! So ALL (Dems and Repubs) have equal opportunity? This is crazy i'm sure BUT it would do away with one party control of the laws???
unblock
(52,387 posts)They set up a structure to try to partisan judges by having them avoid having to campaign for their seat.
So instead, partisan elected officials now simply appoint justices they know will be partisan.
The republicans underlying problem is that neither the president nor the senate are truly democratic institutions (nor is the house, for that matter). Republicans have an advantage in all three cases due to gerrymandering and small state effects.
If we could restore balance in the presidency and the senate, that would go a long way toward restoring sanity to the appointment of justices.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,900 posts)who believed that there were such creatures as honorable people and that they would want to serve the government; and they also set up a system of checks and balances because they also understood that not everybody was honorable. But I don't think they ever anticipated the level of uncontrolled corruption that the Trump administration and the GOP congress has brought about.
unblock
(52,387 posts)So they gave congress and the courts powers to keep a tyrannical president in check.
They didnt figure on a collective of tyrants gaining control of all three branches of government.
They also assumed the media would work to expose tyranny and bring them down.
IADEMO2004
(5,566 posts)bluestarone
(17,067 posts)But i feel the President has too much power the way it is now!
unblock
(52,387 posts)If it werent for all the voting suppression and disenfranchisement and gerrymandering and the electoral college and voting machines and polling place shenanigans and other crap, democrats would be crushing it these days.
Its easy to say more people should vote, and of course they should, but wed already be winning in a remotely fair contest already.
So while the *solution* might be we the voters, the *problem* is really other factors.
genxlib
(5,544 posts)Say 10 or 15. Then I would couple that with a generous retirement and prohibition against any future work. That would avoid anyone returning to the workforce and the potential complications/corruption that brings.
That way, we are not saddled with super young justices just because they can live another 40 years. And it keeps a rotation that is not based on the randomness of death.
bluestarone
(17,067 posts)Sure would like a fairer way that it's done!!
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)And to remain on the court they must pass the Bar Exam every year, just to be sure they are still functioning mentally.
TheSmarterDog
(794 posts)In the past, USSC and other Fed judge nominees were routinely nominated, then confirmed or rejected within 30-60 days. It's the GOP who made it a months-long ordeal.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)They've got a constituency to please, and they take great glee in touting precedent to score points with donors- even knowing that their bad decisions will be overturned.