Posted on 04/13/2017 11:42:12 AM PDT by Michael.SF.
Get a clear and unstoppable majority in the senate.
Achieve that unstoppable majority by providing voters representation that inspires their support.
Doing what is best for the country, in the view of the voters, not what is best for party or ideology.
The bottom line is you don't have to modify the selection process. You have to give constituents confidence that they are being represented well and faithfully in the selection process.
I didn’t suffer through this process. Rather, I found it quite enjoyable knowing Dems were powerless to stop it
The “modest proposal” would require passage through both houses of Congress by 2/3 majority and ratification by 3/4ths of the states. All Federal judges serving for a limited term is not a bad idea, but I honestly don’t think the idea would make it through the Amendment process.
We should not be concerned how the Democrats feel.
We need to return to civil government, and that is up to the democrats. The democrat is an evil corrupt party. They attempt to win at all costs. They need to change if we are to have a civil government and manage for the best interests of all.
Changing the rules of the Supreme Court will not change democrats. They are a corrupt party that has no reasonable ideas for the best interests of the USA. The Liberal Progressive system is out for control and needs to lose and go away.
If nothing else, it would eliminate the whole problem with lifetime appointments undermining the political process -- especially with senile old farts who have no business even dressing themselves in the morning, let alone making legal decisions with far-reaching implications for the entire country.
And we should give a crap why?
The Republicans finally grew a pair and this moron wants to cut them back off. This is one of the dumbest proposals I have ever seen. Fortunately, it would require amending the Constitution, so it will never happen.
I don’t know if there’s a realistic way to fix this but l do know it’s ridiculous the will of an entire nation can be overruled by 5 unelected individuals.
That suggestion is the essence of dumb.
IMO a better idea would be for the President to nominate someone and then let the previous year’s graduating class at Harvard Law School vote up or down.
Repealing the 17th amendment would be a good start. Let the house continue to be run by representatives of often-clueless mobs. But let the senators have at least some interest in representing their state and doing what’s best for the country rather than appealing to mobs of voters.
There are many issues that the mob, which senators depend on for reelection, really cares about but the state has little or no interest. And so many senators have a gay rights or abortion right litmus test and are more than willing to sacrifice the rights of the state government they represent. A judge who thinks the 10th amendment is important is “disqualified”.
And when D leadership is controlled by the mobs and other D senators are not allowed to disagree, you end up with Schumer (and Pelosi) with mob-like opposition to ANYTHING the mob doesn’t like. Representing a state isn’t always better, but decreases the party (and mob) control.
In your haste to criticize my suggestion, you forgot to give any reasons why. LOL.
Not a good thing.
The Dems are not just upset about Garland, they are upset their entire world collapsed in November. They thought Hillary! was a shoe-in, that no one was taking anything the Donald said seriously.
They are angry they were so stupid to put the worst possible candidate forward since Mike Dukakis, and they are going to take out that anger on everyone POTUS Trump nominates.
The animosity will simmer down, but it will never quite end because the Democrats have a vile streak of unkindness controlled by special interests.
It wouldn't be if judges would simply interpret law based on the Constitution. But that is seeming to be a long lost value. Conservative or Liberal should make no difference.
The “modest proposal” would require passage through both houses of Congress by 2/3 majority and ratification by 3/4ths of the states. All Federal judges serving for a limited term is not a bad idea, but I honestly don’t think the idea would make it through the Amendment process.The above outline is one possibility. Other options may have viability as well. Whatever method is ultimately decided upon; it has to be better than that which is now in place.
I would do it a little differently:IMHO this system would make SCOTUS a legitimate issue in every presidential election, and would give the winner of each presidential election a 22 year legacy of 2/11 of SCOTUS justices. A two-term POTUS would have twice that, thus 4/11 of SCOTUS justices for 18 years, and 2/11 of SCOTUS justices for four years before and four years after that 18 year span following his second election.
- Increase the size of SCOTUS from nine to eleven justices.
- Each newly elected POTUS would nominate two justices at the beginning of his term, one being (at least nominally) senior to the other.
- Provided that the POTUS named the nominees in advance of the election (as Trump did last year), ratification of the nominees would only require a 45%, not a majority, vote in the Senate.
- Justices would leave active service on the basis of seniority in order to keep the number of sitting justices at eleven.
- Justices who served out their terms (nominally 22 years, since on average a new justice would be coming online every two years) would become active on an inverse seniority basis (most recent retiree first recalled) to fill vacancies due to retirement, illness, or recusal. But such returns to service would require 45% consent from the Senate, to avoid having ailing justices return to service.
SCOTUS would be a legitimate issue in every presidential election - but SCOTUS openings would come predictably, and practically never spontaneously. And even a two-term POTUS would name only 4/11 of the high court.
Having the presidential candidates post their own lists would give the electorate fair notice of what would happen to SCOTUS if a given presidential candidate were elected.
but I might add a provision for state legislatures, by majority or supermajority, to overturn the presidential value of a SCOTUS decision.
I don’t want anyone from the ninth circuit court determining final judicial review.
I don’t want 50 judges thinking they’re equal to 10% of a President.
I don’t want the unintended consequences of Scotus cases increases 10 fold per year.
But the idea has some merit.
An interesting notion, however, one major job of the Supremes is to clarify confusion caused by conflicting the lower court rulings. I would expect that USSC opinions would be all over the place with the pool of judges, thereby causing even more confusion. Also, depending on the draw, the opinions could be one way, and could then go entirely different on the next draw. An interesting thought though.
Another alternative I've considered would be to simply have a fixed term for U.S. Supreme Court justices -- say, 15 years or so -- and/or a mandatory retirement age or embargo period after retirement. This would minimize the risk of a judge issuing a ruling in a case and then going to work for one of the litigants or for an industry that benefits from that ruling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.