My idea to fix the Supreme Court- Just Elect Them

[Torie]

I would be in favour of court packing over this proposal (I am in favour of court packing anyway).

Why don't you try it in the UK first?   

The thing about court packing is that it is much more dangerous because it can be done by statute. The Founders porked the pooch on that one. The insanity of having a national election for Justices requires a Constitutional amendment that will never ever happen, so one can just have a chuckle about it and move on in total serenity.

[WV222]

In response to some of the criticism that has been leveled at the idea, my first response is that lots of local judges, intermediate court judges, and a majority of states elect State Supreme Court judges. Would it be better than to have the Governor appoint all of them, and have the Legislature confirm them? I have heard no complaints about the election of judges in smaller jurisdiction areas. 

I do favor term limits of around 12 years. This works and would allow for more rotation of the Supreme Court than there is now. I just think the Supreme Court will always be political and no one can stop it from happening.

[beesley]

I would be in favour of court packing over this proposal (I am in favour of court packing anyway).

Why don't you try it in the UK first?   

The thing about court packing is that it is much more dangerous because it can be done by statute. The Founders porked the pooch on that one. The insanity of having a national election for Justices requires a Constitutional amendment that will never ever happen, so one can just have a chuckle about it and move on in total serenity.

I assume that you believed I support court packing for reasons that a British person might have - the Supreme Court is too conservative, or more basically, leans too much on one side. Whether these are problems or not, I see court packing as a legitimate check and balance that the executive doesn't use because of that statute. This is likely a very unpopular position, but to me it's in the spirit of the Constitution, however politically impractical it is.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

Wouldn't the better idea be to create a constitutional amendment that requires the Senate to confirm a judge within a fixed limit or else the President is allowed to make a recess appointment which expires at the end of that president's term? Seems like the highest court in the land missing members would warrant the filling of that role as soon as possible.

I mean sure, if you have enough of a split government you might have a situation where the balance of power on the court is determined by presidential elections, but the flip side of this is that a divided Senate/Presidency would be more inclined to make a deal to stop the President from choosing an unpalatable idealogue.

[Badger]

Wouldn't the better idea be to create a constitutional amendment that requires the Senate to confirm a judge within a fixed limit or else the President is allowed to make a recess appointment which expires at the end of that president's term? Seems like the highest court in the land missing members would warrant the filling of that role as soon as possible.

I mean sure, if you have enough of a split government you might have a situation where the balance of power on the court is determined by presidential elections, but the flip side of this is that a divided Senate/Presidency would be more inclined to make a deal to stop the President from choosing an unpalatable idealogue.

 Change the word  "confirm" to" vote on", And I think you're on to something.It's only a modest improvement, though, as Supreme Court and judicial nominees aren't Is subject to filibuster anyway. But at least there'd be a record of senator's rampant obstructionism

[ingemann]

Why not simply do the opposite of what we do now/used to do before Mcturtle nuked the filibuster. The president picks the nominee when an opening is created and the senate has the ability to advise and consent. Except it’s in the negative, meaning they have to muster 60 votes against the nominee. Say the senate has one month to hold hearings and have a vote in that time if they fail to garner the necessary 60 no votes the nominee is seated.

I would think it would be a better idea to simply let Congress pick the SCJ, it up can hardly be worse than how it’s done now.