Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Syncro

One of the few areas where I would criticize our Founders is the Supreme Court of the United States.

First, having the President choose those who will serve on the Supreme Court is a mistake.

Second, limiting Congress to and advise and consent role is a mistake.

Third, having only 9 justices is a mistake for a branch of the federal government.

Fourth, giving lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court is a mistake.


12 posted on 08/04/2010 3:37:12 PM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Erik Latranyi

9 justices is just tradition... not in the Constitution at all.


19 posted on 08/04/2010 3:40:38 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: Erik Latranyi; OneWingedShark
One of the few areas where I would criticize our Founders is the Supreme Court of the United States.

First, having the President choose those who will serve on the Supreme Court is a mistake.

I think the presidential candidate should name his own SCOTUS choices openly before the election, and defend his/her choices before the electorate. Second, limiting Congress to and advise and consent role is a mistake.
Congress, as presently constituted with no input from the state governments, is not fit to consent to SCOTUS nominees, let alone anything more than that. Third, having only 9 justices is a mistake for a branch of the federal government.
Agreed, tho the shark is correct that the size of the court isn't in the Constitution. It should be, and IMHO 11 justices would be about right. Fourth, giving lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court is a mistake.
Agree, I think. My preference for 11 justices is based on the idea that each POTUS should name 2 justices, and that they should retire after 22 years. They should be in their late 40s/early 50s when named, and should retire by about the age of 80. OTOH there could be a case for giving the states a mechanism for voting justices off the island before 22 years.

Keeping the court at 9 justices and retiring them after 18 years works too, but it seems to give a two-term POTUS too much input into a nine-justice court.

I hadn't previously thought about it, but maybe on the "put all your eggs in one basket - then watch the basket" theory, the court should actually be reduced to seven - and each POTUS would name only one justice for each term he's elected to. But that would map to a 28 year term for each justice . . . if you reduced it to five justices, that would map to 20 year terms.


52 posted on 08/05/2010 3:25:06 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion ( DRAFT PALIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: Erik Latranyi
...

having the President choose those who will serve on the Supreme Court is a mistake.

Second, limiting Congress to and advise and consent role is a mistake.

Third, having only 9 justices is a mistake for a branch of the federal government.

Fourth, giving lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court is a mistake.

Excellent points, thanks!
54 posted on 08/06/2010 8:53:23 AM PDT by Syncro (November is hunting season. No bag limit-Ted Nugent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson