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

To: GOPsterinMA; BillyBoy; AuH2ORepublican; fieldmarshaldj; Clintonfatigued

In closing, I don’t like how they aren’t accountable to anyone but the grim reaper (unless they break the law bad enough to get impeached).


52 posted on 03/26/2012 5:22:55 PM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]


To: Impy; All

“I don’t like how they aren’t accountable to anyone”

Me either. That’s the biggest problem.


53 posted on 03/26/2012 5:27:31 PM PDT by GOPsterinMA (Has Mittens won one "Red State" yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

To: Impy; GOPsterinMA; AuH2ORepublican; fieldmarshaldj; Clintonfatigued
My ideal preference would be to amend the Constitution so all the Supreme Court judges are directly elected by the people through contested elections with other judges (they wouldn't be elected nationwide like Presidents, they'd be elected regionally by blocs of states. Right now there are 11 federal judicial circuits. Cut it down to 9 and we have our 9 election districts for the Supreme Court). It would ensure geographic balance on the court and make it unlikely another David Souter would ever sneak unto the court. That's the method used in Illinois and I believe 7 other states for their state Supreme Court.

(Take that, you "democracy is bad, we should let politicians appoint whoever they want for life because they're so much smarter that us" freepers. ;-p Of course, Rick Perry thinks it's BAD to amend the constitution so voters instead of politicians choose the Senate, but GOOD to amend the constitution so voters instead of politicians pick the Supreme Court. Can you say Schizo?)

That being said, going from an appointment-for-life supreme court to a directly elected to serve a certain term Supreme Court is unlikely to ever become law (sorry, Rick Perry), so we'd probably end up with a compromise where the President continues to appoint whoever he wants for life, subject to Senate confirmation, but voters are allowed to review that appointment every 10 years or so for judicial retention, and could deny a Supreme Court justice more time on the court by majority vote. I could live with that. Too bad there's no serious effort to implement such a reform.

BTW, we FINALLY have a Republican candidate for the Illinois Supreme Court running for one of the three Cook County seats on the court this year. He won't win, but at least those of us in the minority can can a protest vote against the socialist Chicago RAT judge nominated for the Illinois Supreme Court.

54 posted on 03/26/2012 7:02:04 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Illegals for Perry/Gingrich 2012 : Don't be "heartless"/ Be "humane")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | 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