After what happened in the last election, I can’t believe they let us vote for anybody.
I would vote absolutely not on this notion.
It completely ignores the functions and requirements of judges.
There are a number of positions of power in the world, where popularity has nothing at all to do with competence, and judgeships are one of those.
I would support a new amendment requiring that vacancies be filled within a certain time, in order to avoid this situation. That way, everyone could still play their political games, just not for as long as this.
I don’t like the fact that in some states, judges are elected.
Yes…New York State is one of them and it drives me f-cking bonkers. I call it “faux democracy”. The judicial candidates are so restricted on what they can say anyway (although, unlike some states, they do seek political party ballot affiliations) that the whole process seems kind of silly. My attitude is that what I am paying my elected officials for is to appoint good and competent judges. Not saying they necessarily will fulfill that job well but I see even less reason to believe that my fellow voters will do it any better.
What makes it even worse is that there are all these levels of judges we vote for, including family court judge. Urgh!!! And, then between this and the too many levels of government, we end up with elections every year, which is too often and again contributes to making the process less democratic while pretending it is more democratic.
What about - the rest of the Court gets to pick any new members? Take it out of the direct hands of both the executive and legislature…since the court is currently fairly bipartisan, that should become ingrained regardless of the external party politics.
And term limits or a mandatory retirement age, of course…(I prefer both - 15 years / 75 years)
Based on…?
As you and your fellow voters elect the officials who appoint the judges I’m not seeing any real difference with electing judges directly. In both cases the electorate, indirectly or directly, are responsible.
But no, I don’t believe SCOTUS judges should be elected, if only for the waste both of time and money involved in the process.
They might not explicitly call a part of the Constitution unconstitutional, but they could interpret it into nonexistence like the interstate commerce clause.
Two words:
-
Donald
-
Trump
- Non sequitur
When declaring something a non sequitor, you should first consider the possibility that you didn’t understand it.
My point was that Donald Trump was elected. Electing SC judges has a much higher likelihood of producing far out judges than the current system.
Better still- Deathball, in robes.
A lot of decent judges have been elected, and quite a few screwballs have been appointed. If you have something that shows that one method tends to give us better judges than the other, I’d like to look it over.
You can get a “screwball” appointed to some minor position when no one is paying attention or has oversight. Not to a SC position with Senate confirmation.
Unless you happen to have ethically challenged President coupled with a weak-willed Congress that would approve a fireplug for the job if he put it forward.
Theoretically speaking, of course.
Compare Neil Gorsuch and Donald Trump, in terms of qualifications for their respective positions.
Look! he got one right!
That certainly proves your point that on average appointing is better than electing when it comes to judges.
“Proves” is the wrong word here. “Illustrates”.
But it doesn’t illustrate your point that Congress will filter out the bad apples that the President might appoint, since he didn’t give them a bad apple to debate over in the first place. In fact, looking over the long list of people he has put forward to Congress for different positions pretty much confirms that they would have approved anyone he put forward for a SC position.
To the contrary. None of the people he put forth are remotely as unqualified for their respective positions as he himself is for his.