Because of partisan fighting, the Supreme Court has had an empty seat for longer than any time before 1869. Some people are arguing that we shouldn’t nominate anyone until after the Presidential election in 2020. I think that is simply ridiculous, and we need to have a functioning Court. Would direct elections for justices be the solution?
I’d rather see it opened to all the Chief Justices of the fifty state supreme courts, who will stage an extended game of Survivor to see who gets the job.
Absolutely not. The anti-abortion people would come out in record numbers for each election. It’s always easier to mobilize the fringe.
I think electing judges would result in just as much or more partisanship. Having them elected means having judges campaigning, or people campaigning on their behalf, which means money would be affecting our judicial system more than it already does.
And on an aside, the Court has functioned with fewer Justices. I do not know if it has functioned with an even number of Justices.
Hell no. One of the most important things that we like about Supreme Court justices is their ability to be independent and to rule without regard to political fallout or concerns.
If they were elected every few years, it’s highly likely that their opinions and votes on every major case they hear would not be because of their genuine legal philosophies, but because of crass opportunism and a desire to get re-elected.
How about one 10 year term, with the stipulation that they are forever banned from working for any business that came before them in court?
The Court was established with six justices. At one point in the 1860s it had ten.
And when they rule that clause unconstitutional?
Sounds good, although I would make it a bit longer. Federal Reserve Board members are appointed to 14 year terms, which are staggered so they aren’t all up for nomination at the same time. Since it’s very rare for a party to control the Presidency for more than 8 years, this would make it less likely that the Court would be too heavily stacked with either Conservatives or Liberals.
I’d say the average American isn’t qualified to judge the qualifications of a judge. The law is a specialized field for highly trained professionals. If justices were chosen by general election, they’d be getting picked due to their electability rather than their legal knowledge.
No, we should not elect justices.
The court is supposed to be an apolitical body. The fact that it has been increasingly politicized over time is, in most people’s opinions, a bad thing.
Explicitly making it a political body would be even worse. The cure is worse than the disease.
The court is perfectly functional at 8 members. The current scuffle over appointing someone is regrettably political, but it’ll work itself out without a drastic change to the Constitution. Wake me if we get down to 6 members.
A change to the term of SCOTUS justices would require a constitutional amendment, so they’d have to go awfully rogue to do so.
Amending the Constitution is hard. But it may be possible to start a tradition of Justices retiring after X number of years. The Senate could start asking nominees to pledge to retire after a fixed term. Confirmation would be conditional upon the nominee answering “yes”.
How about eighteen year terms? Long enough that they’re not too subject to political pressure but not a lifetime appointment. And we could stagger the appointments so there’s a new appointment every two years. That way, assuming no deaths in mid-term, every President would be able to appoint two justices (four if he’s re-elected). No more cases where some Presidents appoint six justices and some appoint none.
I mean, any change to the method by which Supreme Court justices are selected would require an amendment to the Constitution, and something that’s part of the Constitution is by definition not unconstitutional, so…
Absolutely not. Judges at any level should not be elected. I’m not even a fan of retention elections. Now I could get behind an amendment establishing a mandatory retirement age (say 75-80 years).
(erased)
Getting the President to be a non-partisan role would probably be a better solution, that would solve this problem as well.
The biggest benefit I can see to a fixed term would be the age issue. With justices serving for life, there’s an incentive for presidents to nominate the youngest judges possible, so they can continue to serve for as long as possible. But I see no reason to suspect that younger justices are actually inherently better. And yes, I know that this doesn’t usually come up in practice, but I still hate to see perverse incentives in place.
Of course, the length of the term is completely independent of how they’re selected. I would have no problem with them being appointed to a finite term.
We would end up with 9 Alito’s on the court at the rate the electorate is going. IMO that would be a terrible outcome. Even if the electorate were more liberal, however, I would still be opposed to such a plan. As far as our current court, I hope that they manage to hang on for the next four years so that Trump doesn’t get to appoint more kooky right wingers. I wouldn’t be surprised if he can find someone who is worse than even Alito or Thomas.
No no no, Battle Royale style! They all have to be in their judgerobes the whole time. And they all of a gavel at first until they get their packs o’ random stuff. Leading up to the final two who duke it out Thunderdome style! I’d watch that.