If you believe the SC is broke ... Hijacked my own thread should we elect SC justices?

Lavender Room
1

In our lunch discussion yesterday, I rattled off the top of my head a few of the Biden administrations failure. One of them I believe is not fixing long term the S.C. Judicial situation.

And yes, I have what I believe to be a workable solution, for the future. I will add, I think it needs to be fixed from what our founding fathers set up because (well its changed a few times already but also people are living way longer) and a POTUS over a potential 8yr span has to much potential to stack a court.

Solution - 25 S.C. justices each serves 25 yrs, (With rules I don’t feel like typing out that requires a replacement by a fixed date in the year say Aug 15th so no stonewalling by congress). At which point, someone is named. but anyhow side discussion.

Judges are pooled in 10+ yrs on court and less than 10. each case gets 5 names drawn from the +10 yr side and 4 from the less than 10 yr side.

new rules start with next (So 2029 POTUS) At which point, oldest current of 9 gets replaced. – in meantime. we need 16 more. Dems and Rep each propose 15, a panel Of Judges - Congressmen will then select 8 from each side.

Numbers are negotiable but concept is solid. Oh if someone dies while serving, or steps down, then that seat is left vaccant until its time to be filled comes up. (good or bad, will discourage POTUS from nominating a very old Judge).

Cons- a two term potus would get to appoint 8 of the 25 so nearly a 1/3

– just thought of so have not played pros and cons in my head or developed. What about Every 4 yrs (off potus fed. election cycle) 4 are elected by a majority vote of the nation, every party gets to nominate one. – kind of like this as then you give some power to the lessor parties. A libertarian S.C. Justice… (most like biggest of the 3rd parties not sure who is 4th) Kind of liking this idea… You could go to 28 yrs or 24yrs (which is also number of Justices)

2

Lifetime appointment of justices clearly does not work. I like the idea of having a SC drawn from a hat from a list of federal circuit or appellate courts. IIRC there are over 100 judges in those courts. Pick 9 out of a hat and pick different ones every… how many years?

Or how about every SC case gets a different pool of federal judges? A synthetic SC made up of a large pool of federal judges? This change would probably require a constitutional amendment. We still get to have expert judges weigh in on issues, and rule on legislative branch efforts, but it could no longer be so easy to bias the justices ideologically.

3

Lifetime appointment of justices clearly does not work.

I’m not sure how “clear” this is. We’ve had lifetime appointments to SCOTUS forever, like all federal judges. Changing that isn’t just a restructuring, but a Constitutional amendment. The fact that we’ve currently got a court that has lost the trust of a lot of people doesn’t necessarily mean lifetime appointments don’t work, writ large.

I’m not sure the issue is lifetime appointments so much as greater politicization of the appointment processes, and complete failure to hold serving justices accountable to some sort of ethics standard.

4

In our lunch discussion yesterday, I rattled off the top of my head a few of the Biden administrations failure. One of them I believe is not fixing long term the S.C. Judicial situation.

There are a lot of stupid things posted on here. This is a real contender for stupidester.

5

Election of judges by popular vote is generally considered a bad way of choosing them.

It means that the selection of judges may not be based on merit and ability. The United Nations recommends that the selection process be carried out by an independent authority that focuses on merit and capacity. In contrast to this, the election of judges by popular vote does not ensure they are selected on the basis of merit or competence. Indeed, a number of international bodies have expressed concerns about the negative impact of electing judges by popular vote on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.

Judges would be at risk of political influence when issuing decisions and could damage their integrity.

All that said, it seems clear that the SC has become extremely partisan, subject to serious breaches of ethics, and the GOP has been willing to use “dirty tricks” to stack the court. This all undermines the integrity and credibility of the court.

So I would agree that the SC is in need of reforms. We should have more justices - probably 13-17 - and then nine should be selected randomly for each case. That would allow them to hear more cases and reduce the partisan bias in their decisions.

6

In our lunch discussion yesterday, I rattled off the top of my head a few of the Biden administrations failure. One of them I believe is not fixing long term the S.C. Judicial situation.

There are a lot of stupid things posted on here. This is a real contender for stupidester.

I disagree. After the shenanigans of the GOP in blocking a vote on Garland and then jamming through ACB, it was fair game for Biden to reform the Supreme Court in the first two years of his presidency (when Dems controlled the House and Senate).

The Court clearly needs reforms and ethical standards. Dems could have done it in a responsible way (or not), but it needs reforming.

7

Election of judges by popular vote is generally considered a bad way of choosing them.

I’m not sure where you get this idea. Most states use popular vote to elect the lower level (Supreme Court and below) judges. It certainly works fine in NY doing it that way.

8

In our lunch discussion yesterday, I rattled off the top of my head a few of the Biden administrations failure. One of them I believe is not fixing long term the S.C. Judicial situation.

You seem like a smart guy Dave but the idea that Biden can single handily reform the Supreme court is absurd.

9

Election of judges by popular vote is generally considered a bad way of choosing them.

I’m not sure where you get this idea. Most states use popular vote to elect the lower level (Supreme Court and below) judges. It certainly works fine in NY doing it that way.

A report by Inter-American Dialogue, The Stanford Rule of Law Impact Lab and the Mexican Bar Association.

The report discusses the proposed changes to Mexico’s judicial system that will include popular voting for judges. It cites other UN reports that I referenced above.

10

Election of judges by popular vote is generally considered a bad way of choosing them.

I’m not sure where you get this idea. Most states use popular vote to elect the lower level (Supreme Court and below) judges. It certainly works fine in NY doing it that way.

A report by Inter-American Dialogue, The Stanford Rule of Law Impact Lab and the Mexican Bar Association.

The report discusses the proposed changes to Mexico’s judicial system that will include popular voting for judges. It cites other UN reports that I referenced above.

Yeah, if we are worried that billionaires have too much influence with some Justices, imagine if those Justices needed to raise huge amounts of money to run a (nationwide?) campaign.

11

In our lunch discussion yesterday, I rattled off the top of my head a few of the Biden administrations failure. One of them I believe is not fixing long term the S.C. Judicial situation.

You seem like a smart guy Dave but the idea that Biden can single handily reform the Supreme court is absurd.

The President, is mostly a figure head, and provides direction, so of course he alone can not do that, and I don’t believe I said he could, if I somehow implied that, sorry… But he can set policy, he can keep telling congress this needs to get addressed. Thats what he is suppose to do.

Oh and this is only an issue, cause every few weeks / days several on here, some not in this country complain about the broken/corrupt SC. Well your guy is in charge, and doesn’t seem interested in updating it.

12

Lifetime appointment of justices clearly does not work.

I’m not sure how “clear” this is. We’ve had lifetime appointments to SCOTUS forever, like all federal judges. Changing that isn’t just a restructuring, **but a Constitutional amendment. ** The fact that we’ve currently got a court that has lost the trust of a lot of people doesn’t necessarily mean lifetime appointments don’t work, writ large.

I’m not sure the issue is lifetime appointments so much as greater politicization of the appointment processes, and complete failure to hold serving justices accountable to some sort of ethics standard.

Really??

Article III of the Constitution establishes the federal judiciary. Article III, Section I states that “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Although the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it. Congress first exercised this power in the Judiciary Act of 1789. This Act created a Supreme Court with six justices. It also established the lower federal court system.

13

Election of judges by popular vote is generally considered a bad way of choosing them.

I’m not sure where you get this idea. Most states use popular vote to elect the lower level (Supreme Court and below) judges. It certainly works fine in NY doing it that way.

A report by Inter-American Dialogue, The Stanford Rule of Law Impact Lab and the Mexican Bar Association.

The report discusses the proposed changes to Mexico’s judicial system that will include popular voting for judges. It cites other UN reports that I referenced above.

Yeah, if we are worried that billionaires have too much influence with some Justices, imagine if those Justices needed to raise huge amounts of money to run a (nationwide?) campaign.

Good point, I did say it was not a thought out or developed thought. – Okay kill the election idea.

But I do like drawing them only from Federal Judges. (of course not sure what the procedure is for appointing federal judges so that could be flawed.)

But back on point, I think we need a much larger 25 ish pool that is drawn from. It solves a lot of issues. And is something Congress can do and has changed in the past.

14

Dems could have done it in a responsible way

For the Biden administration to have even tried, they’d have had to first take the nucular option of changing Senate rules to only require a simple majority. So Harris could pass the deciding vote.

Even then it would have been very hard to get centrist Democratic senators to go long. Manchin, etc.

15

Lifetime appointment of justices clearly does not work. I like the idea of having a SC drawn from a hat from a list of federal circuit or appellate courts. IIRC there are over 100 judges in those courts. Pick 9 out of a hat and pick different ones every… how many years?

Or how about every SC case gets a different pool of federal judges? A synthetic SC made up of a large pool of federal judges? This change would probably require a constitutional amendment. We still get to have expert judges weigh in on issues, and rule on legislative branch efforts, but it could no longer be so easy to bias the justices ideologically.

I like this idea. Randomize a pull of all federal judges for each case or each session. 9 or 11 judges.
There’s well over 100 circuit judges and a whole lot more district judges.

16

Lifetime appointment of justices clearly does not work.

I’m not sure how “clear” this is. We’ve had lifetime appointments to SCOTUS forever, like all federal judges. Changing that isn’t just a restructuring, **but a Constitutional amendment. ** The fact that we’ve currently got a court that has lost the trust of a lot of people doesn’t necessarily mean lifetime appointments don’t work, writ large.

I’m not sure the issue is lifetime appointments so much as greater politicization of the appointment processes, and complete failure to hold serving justices accountable to some sort of ethics standard.

Really??

Article III of the Constitution establishes the federal judiciary. Article III, Section I states that “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Although the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it. Congress first exercised this power in the Judiciary Act of 1789. This Act created a Supreme Court with six justices. It also established the lower federal court system.

Yes really. Article III also states that justices of both “the supreme and inferior courts hold their offices in good behavior,” which has been interpreted to mean that they have lifetime appointments, and are removed only through impeachment.

Restructuring the numbers is one thing, and falls well within what I would consider the purview of Congress. Changing the terms of federal justices is different.

17

In our lunch discussion yesterday, I rattled off the top of my head a few of the Biden administrations failure. One of them I believe is not fixing long term the S.C. Judicial situation.

There are a lot of stupid things posted on here. This is a real contender for stupidester.

I disagree. After the shenanigans of the GOP in blocking a vote on Garland and then jamming through ACB, it was fair game for Biden to reform the Supreme Court in the first two years of his presidency (when Dems controlled the House and Senate).

The Court clearly needs reforms and ethical standards. Dems could have done it in a responsible way (or not), but it needs reforming.

What do you think Biden could have done with this?

And how would that have played with voters

Thinking he had a way to radically change the court is freshman philosophy student talk and ignores reality.

18

A comparator: in England we have 12 Supreme Court judges. They are selected on merit from the Court of Appeal (mostly) and sometimes academia. The selection body is apolitical and independent of the Govt.

Retirement age is 75 max. Occasionally a J will retire early for health reasons, or die, or (rarely) retire to do something else. As suitable candidates tend to be quite old when appointed it is rare to have ten years in the SC, so the turnover can be quite high.

Appeals are heard by panels of 5 usually. Important appeals may get 7 or 9. The two Brexit appeals had everyone.

But, and it’s a big but, our SC is not just a constitutional court. It deals with appeals on every area of substantive law (provided they meet the test for the SC to hear them).

FWIW I think lifetime appointments plus the relatively politicised selection system can be - not always, but sometimes - problems with SCOTUS.

19

Election of judges by popular vote is generally considered a bad way of choosing them.

I’m not sure where you get this idea. Most states use popular vote to elect the lower level (Supreme Court and below) judges. It certainly works fine in NY doing it that way.

A report by Inter-American Dialogue, The Stanford Rule of Law Impact Lab and the Mexican Bar Association.

The report discusses the proposed changes to Mexico’s judicial system that will include popular voting for judges. It cites other UN reports that I referenced above.

Yeah, if we are worried that billionaires have too much influence with some Justices, imagine if those Justices needed to raise huge amounts of money to run a (nationwide?) campaign.

Good point, I did say it was not a thought out or developed thought. – Okay kill the election idea.

But I do like drawing them only from Federal Judges. (of course not sure what the procedure is for appointing federal judges so that could be flawed.)

But back on point, I think we need a much larger 25 ish pool that is drawn from. It solves a lot of issues. And is something Congress can do and has changed in the past.

There are advantages to such a system, including making it harder to corrupt (too many potential Justices) and reducing the impact of a single appointment. The 6-3 split in the Court today does not reflect the actual balance in our electorate in recent decades.

OTOH, it could make the law even less stable than it currently is. Would people keep trying to get some issue before the Court in the hope that one day the random selection process will give them a panel they like? We could ping-pong back and forth with overturning Roe, then reinstating it, based on random draws of judges. Maybe you’d need either a larger panel or a more decisive vote to overturn a prior decision.

20

Election of judges by popular vote is generally considered a bad way of choosing them.

I’m not sure where you get this idea. Most states use popular vote to elect the lower level (Supreme Court and below) judges. It certainly works fine in NY doing it that way.

A report by Inter-American Dialogue, The Stanford Rule of Law Impact Lab and the Mexican Bar Association.

The report discusses the proposed changes to Mexico’s judicial system that will include popular voting for judges. It cites other UN reports that I referenced above.

Yeah, if we are worried that billionaires have too much influence with some Justices, imagine if those Justices needed to raise huge amounts of money to run a (nationwide?) campaign.

Good point, I did say it was not a thought out or developed thought. – Okay kill the election idea.

But I do like drawing them only from Federal Judges. (of course not sure what the procedure is for appointing federal judges so that could be flawed.)

But back on point, I think we need a much larger 25 ish pool that is drawn from. It solves a lot of issues. And is something Congress can do and has changed in the past.

There are advantages to such a system, including making it harder to corrupt (too many potential Justices) and reducing the impact of a single appointment. The 6-3 split in the Court today does not reflect the actual balance in our electorate in recent decades.

OTOH, it could make the law even less stable than it currently is. Would people keep trying to get some issue before the Court in the hope that one day the random selection process will give them a panel they like? We could ping-pong back and forth with overturning Roe, then reinstating it, based on random draws of judges. Maybe you’d need either a larger panel or a more decisive vote to overturn a prior decision.

You just need more honorable and honest judges who respect precedent. Sadly, many of the current crop don’t.