The way we choose Supreme Court nominees is broken. Here’s how to fix it.

[homersapien 11,367]

Seems like a good idea to me.  

 

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/14/15295474/how-to-fix-supreme-court

How to fix the Supreme Court

[SaltyTiger 7,792]

21 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Seems like a good idea to me.  

 

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/14/15295474/how-to-fix-supreme-court

How to fix the Supreme Court

Agree with you homer. I would love to see term limits beyond SC. Reasoning for ten years? Sounds good regardless. In your belittlement of Americans that voted for President Trump understand that many cast their vote for what they assumed would be his SC nomination. Hopefully nominations.

[Guest WarEagleSteve]

I used to strongly believe in lifetime appointments for Supreme Court justices. I thought that having a more or less permanent presence in one branch of government would balance out the other two. However, I think now that term limits are probably a good idea. Firstly, as the article pointed out, because lifetime appointments have effectively broken the nomination process to the point of actually handicapping the government. Second, I think it's a good idea to get fresh ideas into the court. Five of the current Supreme Court justices were born before 1950 and four of those have served for at least twenty years. How much can they possibly know about the lives of the people their decisions impact? 

[80Tiger 899]

21 hours ago, WarEagleSteve said:

I used to strongly believe in lifetime appointments for Supreme Court justices. I thought that having a more or less permanent presence in one branch of government would balance out the other two. However, I think now that term limits are probably a good idea. Firstly, as the article pointed out, because lifetime appointments have effectively broken the nomination process to the point of actually handicapping the government. Second, I think it's a good idea to get fresh ideas into the court. Five of the current Supreme Court justices were born before 1950 and four of those have served for at least twenty years. How much can they possibly know about the lives of the people their decisions impact? 

Sounds like you are making an argument for age discrimination.

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

I like this article as it blames both parties equally for the bind we are in. It is not ideological it is factual. I support the basic idea of term limits be it 10 years or something a little longer I kind of like 14 years as that would be a new appointee every two years. The real issue is how do you phase out the currently seated members if somehow the constitution was amended and it passed. If you did all at once the party in power would dominate the Supreme court with almost unanimous decisions for the term limit of the justices. That is why I like replacing one every two years starting with the one who has been on the court the longest until each has been replaced. With the term limit there would be no reason to try and find the youngest qualified candidate so there would be no age discrimination.

The reality is that this will never happen as it is to difficult to pass an amendment to the constitution as divided as our Congress is and the states there won't be an amendment passed to the constitution.

[ertrader 197]

I think you would have 18 year terms if it was every two years? That's long.

The problem with ten year terms is you are replacing almost one per year, so at the end of a presidents 8 years the Court would be totally stacked by one presidents choices. If the next president is from a different party then it will slowly wind back the other way. (Or to put it another way, think about what the Court would have looked like after 12 years of Regan/Bush)

Also, this will cause everyone petitioning the Court to time the court by simply waiting until the Court is balanced in their favor (and this will be easily predictable) before bringing cases.

I think the Court is mostly fine. It's largely the Senate acting like buffoons that's the problem. You know, the ones we vote for time and time again. 

 

 

[maxwere 82]

Fix it by eliminating lower federal courts and encourage state & local courts to reclaim original jurisdiction.  Any SCOTUS "opinion" outside of that jurisdiction might as well join the editorial section of VOX.

[AU64 10,122]

My concern about the lifetime appointment is that some judges stay beyond the point of competence. 

Otherwise, etrader makes some good points about why not to  have relatively short terms.  

As for younger judges understanding the lives of the people they effect....I think the most recent Justice made the point that his job is to apply the law and constitution....not try to slant decisions toward some social objective though a few Dem Senators gave him a hard time about not being for the "little people". 

God Forbid if our judicial system moves much further in the direction of ignoring the written law and making judgements on the basis of what they think a socially desirable outcome should be....in essence becoming 2/3 of what is supposed to be a 3 part checks and balances system. JMO.

[FoundationEagle 637]

Just a coincidence this wasn't discussed when Obama got to put in his 2 judges?  

[homersapien 11,367]

11 hours ago, FoundationEagle said:

Just a coincidence this wasn't discussed when Obama got to put in his 2 judges?  

Well, that was before Merrick Garland as well as before the election of a narcissistic psychopath with judicial appointments being cited as one of the reasons to elect him.

So, yeah, coincidence.

[FoundationEagle 637]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Well, that was before Merrick Garland as well as before the election of a narcissistic psychopath with judicial appointments being cited as one of the reasons to appoint him.

So, yeah, coincidence.

Lmfao. Attack attack attack. Don't believe I've ever seen any substantial discussion on this forum in years. Just hit pieces and fighting. Stumbled in looking for news on the protest. Hasn't changed a bit. If it's not on your side you bash it. If it is you defend it. It's as if no one has their own minds in this country anymore. Just political affiliations that tell them what to think. Sad really. 

[homersapien 11,367]

6 hours ago, FoundationEagle said:

Lmfao. Attack attack attack. Don't believe I've ever seen any substantial discussion on this forum in years. Just hit pieces and fighting. Stumbled in looking for news on the protest. Hasn't changed a bit. If it's not on your side you bash it. If it is you defend it. It's as if no one has their own minds in this country anymore. Just political affiliations that tell them what to think. Sad really. 

So, speaking of "substantial discussion" what were you trying to imply?

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

On 4/22/2017 at 10:05 PM, homersapien said:

So, speaking of "substantial discussion" what were you trying to imply?

The topic is about Supreme court justices and a possible term limit for them. Rather than deal with that you go on the attack with the line a narcissistic psychopath. We have already figured out you don't like Trump but that is irrelevant to this discussion. I totally understand people being upset about the way Merrick Garland was treated but then trying to sabotage Gorusch because of that was rather childish it kind of makes you wonder who the narcissistic psychopath's are.

As I said earlier I like the idea of some limit. I agree with one poster that to short a time gives a a President who serves 8 years to much power so the real question if you like term limits is how many years would it take to limit one president from controlling the whole court.  I originally said 14 years but after reading some other peoples comments I think 18 years.  That would be one appointment every 2 years. If we did that Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsberg and Beyer would be gone.  That would seem like a president would only select 4 out of 9. But what happens if one or two die then you could have 5 or 6 by one President. So again no perfect solution.

It is a moot point. It would require an amendment to the Constitution to change that and there is no way that will happen as this country is to divided to pull that off.

 

[homersapien 11,367]

My question was addressed to Foundation eagle. I asked what he was implying, not you.

Don't confuse the issue.

[mcgufcm 4,096]

Question for people, are y'all speaking specifically about the Supreme Court alone? I assume everyone is aware than federal judicial appointments are lifetime appointments. That tenure is not limited to the Supreme Court. Are y'all advocating term limits for all federal judicial appointments or just the top branch? Just wondering what people think on that issue.

Personally, as an attorney, I think the lifetime appointment serves at least one very important role:  it makes the job more attractive to those that are asked to fill the positions, which nets better judges. Ask anyone that practices (with the possible exception of a true plaintiff's attorney), and they'll tell you federal court and federal judges are FAR BETTER at running a court and actually providing reasoned analysis of legal issues in a case. There are exceptions to that. There are bad federal judges. There are great state court judges, but the rule is:  federal court presents a higher level of discourse, at the trial or appellate levels. I'm not sure you'd have as many practitioners jumping at the chance to take a pay cut to serve on the judiciary if you took away the benefit of lifetime appointment (job security + less opportunity to be second guessed or subjected to politics). Instead, I suspect you'd see a lot more politically ambitious folks angling for those jobs (like you see in state courts).

I agree that the nominating/confirming process is broken, but I don't think the fault lies in lifetime tenure. For my money, it feels more like an issue at the Senate level.

[AU64 10,122]

1 hour ago, mcgufcm said:

Question for people, are y'all speaking specifically about the Supreme Court alone? I assume everyone is aware than federal judicial appointments are lifetime appointments. That tenure is not limited to the Supreme Court. Are y'all advocating term limits for all federal judicial appointments or just the top branch? Just wondering what people think on that issue.

Personally, as an attorney, I think the lifetime appointment serves at least one very important role:  it makes the job more attractive to those that are asked to fill the positions, which nets better judges. Ask anyone that practices (with the possible exception of a true plaintiff's attorney), and they'll tell you federal court and federal judges are FAR BETTER at running a court and actually providing reasoned analysis of legal issues in a case. There are exceptions to that. There are bad federal judges. There are great state court judges, but the rule is:  federal court presents a higher level of discourse, at the trial or appellate levels. I'm not sure you'd have as many practitioners jumping at the chance to take a pay cut to serve on the judiciary if you took away the benefit of lifetime appointment (job security + less opportunity to be second guessed or subjected to politics). Instead, I suspect you'd see a lot more politically ambitious folks angling for those jobs (like you see in state courts).

I agree that the nominating/confirming process is broken, but I don't think the fault lies in lifetime tenure. For my money, it feels more like an issue at the Senate level.

Thanks for the commentary.....and I agree...the Senate is the problem...or maybe the political climate. 

I hate to screw around with a system that has worked pretty well for a couple hundred years give or take just because some folks can't find a way to deal with things now.  Perhaps however the political value of a Supreme Court seat has increased such that candidates have to pass all kinds of litmus tests thrown at them by the Senate who seem more interested in disqualifying a candidate rather than finding him or her worthy. 

JMO but I'm not sure how any of the other proposals I've noted, would eliminate the pressure from Senators who want to assure that a particular political or social point of view is represented....unless we just get a pool of "qualified candidates" and draw a name out of a hat.

[triangletiger 1,599]

18 hours ago, AU64 said:

JMO but I'm not sure how any of the other proposals I've noted, would eliminate the pressure from Senators who want to assure that a particular political or social point of view is represented....unless we just get a pool of "qualified candidates" and draw a name out of a hat.

Then the Senate would be arguing over which names can go in the hat.