Idea: Elect Supreme Court Justices
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 27, 2021, 08:58:05 PM

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
  Idea: Elect Supreme Court Justices
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Idea: Elect Supreme Court Justices  (Read 1527 times)
YOUNGKIN FOR VIRGINIA
GregTheGreat657
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,565
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.16, S: 0.61

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 31, 2021, 02:27:09 PM »

This would bring more stability to the Supreme Court, and justices would be less likely to die in office for political reasons. It also gives the people full control of all three branches of government as to who makes them up.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,879
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 01, 2021, 01:46:51 AM »

God no.  No judicial offices should be elected, and it's bizarre that so many states already do so.
Logged
this is a displayname
EastOfEden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,552


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 01, 2021, 07:57:55 AM »

Partisanship nightmare. No. Absolutely not.
Logged
LabourJersey
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,057
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 01, 2021, 08:27:40 PM »

A partisan election to a lifetime term of the Court would be a complete nightmare.
Logged
REAL Kimberly Guilfoyle
theflyingmongoose
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,486
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.41, S: -1.29

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 02, 2021, 12:12:25 AM »

Then we could get a judicial Trump. The court may get in the way of both side's partisan wants when they have a majority, but the stability provided is worth it.
Logged
YOUNGKIN FOR VIRGINIA
GregTheGreat657
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,565
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.16, S: 0.61

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 02, 2021, 09:04:06 AM »

To the people saying the court elections would be too partisan, maybe it could be done in a way that on the ballots voters can't see which party the justices are affiliated with. Also, the Supreme Court appointments are already very partisan.
Logged
zoz
Rookie
**
Posts: 132


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 02, 2021, 11:27:43 AM »

Absolutely not. We've already democratized too much of our government as it is
Logged
LabourJersey
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,057
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 02, 2021, 02:15:06 PM »

To the people saying the court elections would be too partisan, maybe it could be done in a way that on the ballots voters can't see which party the justices are affiliated with. Also, the Supreme Court appointments are already very partisan.

People would still know which party a judicial candidate is aligned with, based on their record and endorsements. Removing a D or R alone wouldn't make this any better.
Logged
MarkD
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,363
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 03, 2021, 10:03:18 AM »

The reason why our Founding Fathers made the federal judiciary to be politically independent was because that was the only way to ensure that the judges could render their decisions objectively. It's arguable that that original plan is not working, because Presidents are almost always not interested in trying to appoint the most objective interpreters of law to the Supreme Court. But would holding popular elections for Supreme Court Justices actually increase the possibility of us ending up with truly objective interpreters of law? Would most voters actually understand that objectivity is what we need the most?
Logged
#PACK THE COURTS
Solid4096
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,404


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 04, 2021, 07:40:03 AM »

Would definitely be better than the current system.
Logged
Old School Democrat
Christian Man
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 757


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: 0.52

P P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 10, 2021, 01:27:03 PM »

FF, but the court should be nonpartisan
Logged
SnowLabrador
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,105
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 10, 2021, 10:44:20 PM »

Would definitely be better than the current system.
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,786
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 13, 2021, 01:25:41 PM »


Y'all are insane.
Logged
EugeneDebs
Rookie
**
Posts: 39
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -4.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 13, 2021, 07:03:34 PM »

Do you really want longstanding legal precedent that binds the entire country to oscillate with shifts in partisan politics? That sounds like a nightmare.
Logged
Non Swing Voter
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,525


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 15, 2021, 11:42:11 PM »

No, we want to get politics OUT of the court.  Look how horrendously courts in southern states like Texas behave. 

The best solution is to impose term limits so we don't have 90 year olds on the bench who are literally drooling tapioca while their clerks write actual opinions. 

10 year term limits.  This also makes senate confirmations less high stakes.
Logged
DPKdebator
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,796
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.83


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 16, 2021, 04:07:20 PM »

Elected justices are a bad idea by principle, since it places judges under electoral pressure which is not something that you want when deciding on whether or not something is constitutional. Regardless of whether or not you like the way things are with the Supreme Court as it is, an elected Supreme Court would be much worse.
Logged
CentristRepublican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,033
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 16, 2021, 10:08:17 PM »

I think a good reform may be to, instead of senatorial approval, the president naming his top 2 or 3 picks for the Supreme Court and voters selecting one of them (whoever gets the most votes is appointed).
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,786
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 17, 2021, 09:54:03 PM »

I think a good reform may be to, instead of senatorial approval, the president naming his top 2 or 3 picks for the Supreme Court and voters selecting one of them (whoever gets the most votes is appointed).

Honestly, if we're going that far, then we might as well just go all the way & implement a federal Missouri Plan.
Logged
CentristRepublican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,033
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 17, 2021, 10:04:56 PM »
« Edited: September 17, 2021, 10:10:09 PM by CentristRepublican »

I think a good reform may be to, instead of senatorial approval, the president naming his top 2 or 3 picks for the Supreme Court and voters selecting one of them (whoever gets the most votes is appointed).

Honestly, if we're going that far, then we might as well just go all the way & implement a federal Missouri Plan.

Yeah, I think the Missouri Plan might be a pretty good idea - probably better than the one I suggested, since it'd make the vote (to retain a judge) less partisan and more based on the record and decisions of the judge. What I mean is, in what I suggested, there'd probably be some level of partisanship (since Democrats might support one candidate and Republicans another), and it'd basically be pitting judges against each other, making it is less of an appointment and more of a campaign - and there's no reason to insert politics into the Supreme Court. In the Missouri Plan, on the other hand, the vote would take into account the decisions the judge has made and the positions they have taken, and rather than being a campaign, a judge's record would kind of speak for itself and provide enough information to cast an informed ballot. For instance, let's say that under my prior proposal, a judge is perceived as conservative, and is nominated along with a liberal, to the Supreme Court. Then the Democrats would vote for the liberal and Republicans would vote for the conservatives and it'd be yet more hyperpartisanship. On the other hand, let's say under the Missouri plan, let's say that same 'conservative' judge is appointed for a year and it turns out he's liberal on some issues. Then, some moderate Democrats who agree with him on a majority of issues might vote to keep him a year later, rather than simply voting him down based on his perceived political views before he gets a chance to actually make big decisions.
Logged
P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong
razze
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,352
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -4.96


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 08, 2021, 09:51:39 AM »

Do you really want longstanding legal precedent that binds the entire country to oscillate with shifts in partisan politics? That sounds like a nightmare.

Lol you got me, I spent a full minute thinking this was a serious reply. I even starting writing up a response about how this is literally the current situation when I realized
Logged
Pres Mike
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 453
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 12, 2021, 08:01:23 AM »

This would be a nightmare. I prefer single 10 year terms
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.05 seconds with 12 queries.