[kingu]

It is so weird to see folks campaign for the high court.

[skimbell]

I think that she'd be one of the best possible picks for the SCOTUS.

That said I'm equally as sure that Bush doesn't have the balls to nominate her because the loony left considers her to be an "exceptional circumstance" that would undoubtedly require a filibuster that I'm sure Bush feels our spineless majority can't deal with.

Too bad!

[little jeremiah]

She's good.

I don't know if she's "campainging" or not, but a few days ago there was quite a long article about a speech she gave at Harvard. You ought to check it out.

[Cicero]

I looked over the front running candidates, and to all appearances she would be one of the best.

[Thud]

This is critical. The same judicial philosophy which brought us Roe v. Wade has caused the Supreme Court to violate separation of powers in national security matters, notably Rasul v. Bush.

It is time to end the judicial branch's independence, with term limits for federal judges and retention elections for the Supreme Court. This will require that state legislatures call for a convention to suggest amendments to the Constitution.

I suggest a twelve-year term limit in any one judicial position, with promotion but not reappointment not being possible, and a twenty-year limit on service in federal judicial office regardless of promotion. I.e., a person may be appointed as a federal district court judge, serve there for ten years, and then be promoted to the federal circuit court of appeals where he'll be termed out after ten years.

I'd have retention elections for the U.S. Supreme Court, based on a state's electoral votes rather than popular votes, and have it affect the entire court rather than individual judges - the ballot would read, "Should the justices of the United States Supreme Court be retained in office?" (with a yes/no vote). Every few years (I favor two years given that the Supremes monkeying with national security in intelligence matters could get thousands of us killed) this would appear on federal ballots.

I'd make it the entire Court rather than individual justices because at the national level there just isn't, and can't be, name identification for judges the way there is for presidential candidates. It is the Court as a whole which is an issue, not an individual candidate for President. We want Supreme Court justices to focus on their day jobs, not getting their name identification across to voters.

The original John Leo article here appears in U.S. News at:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/050718/18john.htm