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.
