The only way in which Washington succeeded in being nonpartisan was because everyone wanted him to be president. You can’t organize a political system based on the hope of such a unique and highly unlikely circumstance.
Except for a few thousand lawsuits.
In all fairness to the OP’s bizarrely grotesque suggestion which, if implemented, would utterly destroy any credibility the judiciary might possess, I daresay guns would be a major factor as well.
So let’s say you’ve got four SCOTUS Candidates, presumably already experienced as judges on the state or federal level (though there’s nothing in the OP to suggest this would be a requirement - I’m just assuming it to keep the hypothetical from going completely absurd).
Candidate A: Pro-choice, favours restrictions on gun ownership.
Candidate B: Pro-choice, favours dropping all license requirements for purchasing and open- or concealed-carry.
Candidate C: Pro-life, favours restrictions on gun ownership.
Candidate D: Pro-life, favours dropping all license requirements for purchasing and open- or concealed-carry.
So who wins in a general popular election where, say, 50% of eligible voters don’t bother to show up? If there’s an A, B and D in the running, could B and D split the pro-gun vote, allowing A to take a plurality?
Will there be a mechanism for recall votes?
As a defendant? Fifty-fifty.
Damn, aging is a bitch! Apologies to all.
It’s easy to craft a system that would do it, difficult to actually get such a system made into the law. But that’s equally true for editing how the Supreme Court justices are hired. Either way, you need a Constitutional Amendment.
But if we’re accepting that a Constitutional Amendment is feasible, which seems to be a prerequisite of both the OP and the older thread, then the hard part is already done. There’s an innumerable set of options for adjusting things to prefer a more centrist leader or for setting up systems that would elect a non-partisan leader. I could spend a day coming up with options and probably have twenty or so reasonable solutions proposed by the end of it, all of which would work better than the current ad-hoc system of electing Presidents.
I don’t like the idea of elections, but I wouldn’t mind some changes given the reality of the system today:
- Perhaps fixed terms, so the process is more predictable?
- Perhaps instead of the President nominating and the Senate approving, along with fixed terms the seats could be filled from different sources? Say, three Presidential seats(no Senate confirmation necessary), three Senate seats, and three that automatically go to the most senior federal appellate judge, should he or she be willing and able to take it and serve a complete term?
I would think that shorter terms for justices would mean that I want even younger and more ideological judges. If the judge only has 15 years to change the law, I want him aggressive, bold, and not napping in the afternoon. I would be less likely to appoint a statesman who can mold the judiciary over a lifetime of service; I want a bulldog who will slash and burn in the little time he has to serve.
Have Supreme Court Justices elected, by the same electorate who thought that Donald Trump was an honest and savvy world leader? We might as well just do it by a lottery or let Publisher’s Clearinghouse find someone from their rolls. “You, yes YOU, Dan Crevice of Asshole, Alabama! YOU are the next Justice of the Supreme Court!”
Yeah, I like democracy as much as the next guy, but even as a politically involved person, I find it weird when I’m voting for judges and such. I really base my decision on next to nothing.
If I were going to monkey about with our electoral system, a much better change would be to abolish the Senate, and have the President elected by the house rather than by the electoral college.
No more divided government, the only catch is that there’s no more pointing fingers at the opposition party when the majority party somehow doesn’t enact the policies they said they’d enact.
You don’t get to monkey around with anything until you evolve a bit more. 
Absolutely not. I do not want politician types being on the SCOTUS.
Spin the Gavel?
What if the current supreme court justices nominated people to replace their ranks?
Not sure how well exactly it would work, but as they are going to be working with them for a while in the future, it seems that they would be well positioned to pick good ones. They probably already know most of the major jurist players, and see much of their work as it comes before them on its final appeal.
Keep the senate as advise and consent (but change it so they actually need to vote to turn down a nominee, with no vote taken as a tacit consent, after a fixed amount of time).
They had some very compelling reasons, and I think they still exist today. First, you want the judiciary grounded more in the long term and in the Constitution itself, not in what is often fickle populist stances. Those change fairly rapidly, while what you want from your judicial branch are folks able to look at that long term as well as view society from a more removed perspective and evaluate how changes to society in the long term effect the interpretation and meaning of the Constitution. While the President can appoint a SCJ and the Senate and Congress approve them, once they are in they aren’t influenced as much by the political process…they are in for life, after all, and afaik can’t be removed very easily just because they go against whichever party selected and confirmed them. If you instead made them elected officials then they could (and probably would) be subject to replacement if they made a ruling that is in keeping with the Constitution but wasn’t popular with the masses…or with one party or the other. Considering how polarized our current political system has gotten, I think this was a genius move by the FF to set it up this way, as much today as in their own time.
The TLDR version is the framers definitely had their reasons, those reasons are as valid today as they were when they made them, and it would be a VERY bad idea to change this.
We do have a system. Alas, the Republican Congress did their bit to subvert it when they ignored President Obama’s nomination. They could have reviewed him & taken a vote–surely they could have defeated him. But, no.
However, we can solve that particular problem by voting out every Republican we can in 2018. And in later years, for the Senators…
That’s essentially a (temporary) dictatorship abolishing any check or balance between the legislative and the executive.
“I want this law/it’s passed/It’s implemented/NEXT !”, “I want EVERYTHING anybody legislated before we had power repealed/Done/NEXT !”. The super-executive would then likely get the judicial out of the picture by drowning it in penny ante bullshit suits and/or legislative Gish gallop, since the Senate isn’t there to moderate any of it any more. No more checks, fuck your balance, baby it’s good to be the king.
And, sure, next election the bums are voted out (maybe - congressional districts being slanted by design & gerrymandering), but what do you, the elector, do when both parties pull the exact same shenanigans and you get to vote between two unrestrained dictators ?
The US system is designed to do nothing most of the time. That’s not a bug, that’s its major selling point.
Vote anyway, or the wrong lizard might get in.
By Congress did you mean the House of Representatives? The House has no role in approving a Supreme Court Justice.
Right, but to put it slightly more accurately, that is its major selling point among those who harbor an intrinsic distrust of government and feel that the less government does, in general, the better. Those who view government as a means of serving the people and promoting the common good may have a different view.
As for the OP’s suggestion, I agree with the dissenters, to say the least. There would be no surer way than direct election to turn an already highly politicized Supreme Court into a total, flat-out political body that would simply become an extension of Congress. Imagine for a moment justices out campaigning, making ideological pronouncements, then feeling righteously empowered to enact their ideologies by virtue of an electoral mandate! At least today they have to stand before the Senate and piously pretend to be interested in nothing but justice, even though everyone knows that’s really the farthest thing from anyone’s mind.
Nowhere else in the world to my knowledge is the highest court of any nation already such an overtly political body, so divided along predictable ideological lines, and, of late, so astoundingly activist that it even takes its own initiatives to expand the scope of cases far beyond the original intent, as it did with Citizens United. If this condition of the Supreme Court can be thought of as a raging fire threatening the meaningful existence of the judicial branch – and by extension, threatening the structure of democracy itself – turning it into an elected body would be like pouring a few thousand gallons of gasoline on the inferno.