FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Should we change the method we select them?
Supreme court justice selection method
- Thread starter FUCK THE POLICE
- Start date
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I voted for Grind, that way he can select me as Chief Justice for life.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Epicurus
Reasonable
None of these seem complicated enough for me. Here is my proposed system.
1.) I think that the President should get to recommend one person to a panel, the Senate Majority leader gets to recommend one person, and the Speaker House gets to recommend one.
2.)These three three people each draw one letter out of a hat holding all 26 letters. This will give them three letters.
3.) With the help of the FBI and the NSA they must compile a list of all Americans who have these three initials.
5.) From this list the three person panel will select five candidates whose initials reflect the three letters the panel drew.
6.)The panel will vote to strike one of the five names from consideration.
7.) Then the remaining four candidate names are sent first to the House where the Speaker will get to strike one more name.
8.) Then the remaining three will proceed to the Senate, where the President pro Temp will strike another name from consideration.
9.) The last two names will make their way to the President, who will decide from among them which one he wants.
10.) The nominee then must be confirmed by the Senate.
11.) After being confirmed by the Senate, the appointment is sent to each of the 50 states for ratification by two-thirds of each state's legislature. The appointment must be ratified by at least half of the states successfully, or the process starts all over again.
1.) I think that the President should get to recommend one person to a panel, the Senate Majority leader gets to recommend one person, and the Speaker House gets to recommend one.
2.)These three three people each draw one letter out of a hat holding all 26 letters. This will give them three letters.
3.) With the help of the FBI and the NSA they must compile a list of all Americans who have these three initials.
5.) From this list the three person panel will select five candidates whose initials reflect the three letters the panel drew.
6.)The panel will vote to strike one of the five names from consideration.
7.) Then the remaining four candidate names are sent first to the House where the Speaker will get to strike one more name.
8.) Then the remaining three will proceed to the Senate, where the President pro Temp will strike another name from consideration.
9.) The last two names will make their way to the President, who will decide from among them which one he wants.
10.) The nominee then must be confirmed by the Senate.
11.) After being confirmed by the Senate, the appointment is sent to each of the 50 states for ratification by two-thirds of each state's legislature. The appointment must be ratified by at least half of the states successfully, or the process starts all over again.
Last edited:
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I think one twenty year term is sufficient.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
You forgot proportional representation epic.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
This would lead to a string of XYZ Affairs...
Last edited:
Epicurus
Reasonable
The way I made it up is kind of IRV-esque.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i dont' see getting rid of the life time appt. i don't want any justice on the supreme court thinking about what they are going to do after their term is up etc...need them to be as unbiased as possible.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
It's unfair that a justice gets to have their voice heard longer on the court based on trivial things like how long they live. They should all get a single 20 year term, and that's it for them as far as the judiciary goes. It has all the neutrality benefits of a life term without the depends-on-how-long-you-can-kick-it unfairness of a life term.
Also I hate the president so I think congress should appoint instead.
Also I hate the president so I think congress should appoint instead.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
no...get on all sorts of boards etc...just like politicians
think about it...what was your last job, scotus....very high demand, high visibility, just like politicians and i don't want the court full of politicians
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
honestly, that is one of the strangest posts i have seen from you. just because they live longer...looool. life taint fair...and i do not believe that a single term will be neutral, see post above. independence is important and non life appts, IMO, would greatly take away from that....
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
and even with 20 year appts, one could still die and then still not have the same voice as you say....
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Two interesting perspectives. Personally I have a problem with lifetime appointments (even for the Pope) because it absolves them from behaving responsibly at their job. During the Founder's time it life expectancy wasn't as long as it is now, so I think a change is justified. I don't think we need to worry about what happens after retirement because they get 100% of their income and these guys, when retired, are too old to spend lots of ill begotten cash. And 20 years seems too long because most become Judges in their 50's, meaning they'd be lifetime appointments anyway.
Looking at the intention of the Constitution, the House term is two years to keep the folks who control the spending close to re-election, and the Senate 6 years to allow them some distance from the voter. Less than 8 would mean a two-term president could be requiring favors for the guy to get a re-term. So I'll say either 8 years would be ideal, with possibility of a second term.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Its 2-4-6 to stagger the rate at which the government can change on a given election. The House got the short end because its elected by the ignorant masses, and therefore needs reassessment more often.
The SCOTUS is lifetime specifically for the purpose of an independent judiciary. The life expectancy doesn't change that intent. Remember, most of the Founders were lawyers...
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
They were designed to be independent because the Founders also gave the Senate the power of impeachment, and they assumed that Senators would have some balls. However impeachment requires balls and Senators don't have them. Unless I'm mistaken a SC judge has never been tossed out. Yet we routinely have judges who don't obey their constitutional mandate.
Socrtease
Verified User
For someone that seems to care about the intentions of the Framers you have completely ignored the intentions of the framers. What you don't seem to understand is that they understood that life spans were getting longer. They knew this from experience. So they intended that no matter how long a supreme court justice lives they intended that they have the position for LIFE. If they didn't mean life they would not have said that based upon the examples you gave above. So obviously, knowing that they gave terms of 2 4 and 6 years for the House, Presidency and Senate, had they wanted Justices to be limited to a term relative to life expectancy at the time they would have limited it to that life expectancy. You don't like things the court has done for the last 40 years so you want to whine about it.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
I personally am not a fan of a lot of things the Court has done since Taney was Chief, but I still don't advocate changing it...
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
You completely ignored my point that the Founders also intended crappy judges to be impeached, and the Senate thus far has failed to do so. What we have ended up with is Judges who ignore the Constitution and in fact look to laws in Europe for precedent.