Maybe It's Time to Change the way we replace Supreme Court Justices

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Dayton3, Sep 18, 2020.

  1. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My plan

    1) The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court remains a lifetime appointment.
    2) The eight associate justices serve 16 year terms. At the end of those 16 years they may be reappointed but they have to be confirmed by the Senate again.
    3) Any of the eight associate justices who die or resign during their 16 years will have one appointed to replace them but ONLY until the end of the departing justices 16 year term. Then they must be reappointed and reconfirmed.

    4) This would start in the odd number years. A justice in 2025, 2027,, 2029 and so on.

    5) This would mean that absent an unexpected death, a one term president would be able to appoint two and only two justices to the court or three if the Chief Justice happened to die or step down.

    A two term president would be able to appoint four and only four justices to the court or five if the chief just happened to die or step down.

    I feel the predictability of Supreme Court vacancies would help take some of the political edge off the current process, not to mention the unseemliness of one side praying that a justice stays alive while the other side hopes that they die.

    Opinions?
     
    Golem likes this.
  2. God & Country

    God & Country Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    4,487
    Likes Received:
    2,837
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If something isn't broken don't try to fix it. A conservative lock on the SCOTUS is exactly what's needed now and it doesn't hurt that it'll remain so for a very long time. Now all we need is the house.
     
  3. 61falcon

    61falcon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    21,436
    Likes Received:
    12,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The lifetime appointment was given them so that they would be unaffected by politics. They had their job regardless of which party was in power, lifetime appointment freed them from political leanings was the theory.
     
    Quantum Nerd and Imnotreallyhere like this.
  4. 61falcon

    61falcon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    21,436
    Likes Received:
    12,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Conservative judges have had at least a 5-4 advantage since the Nixon administration.
     
  5. btthegreat

    btthegreat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    16,380
    Likes Received:
    7,057
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't mind the proposal, but actually I'd like the US House to confirm rather than the senate, or heck lets go bold and have a majority of Governors or state legislatures confirm and dilute some of Washington's power base. Its not that complicated in an online world and it isn't hard to call a special session in these bodies to confirm.
     
  6. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Only if you consider a judge "conservative" if they were appointed by a Republican.

    Some of the most liberal judges in history have been appointed by Republicans though. Like Earl Warren by Eisenhower and David Souter by Bush.
     
    Bravo Duck likes this.
  7. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your proposal is worthy of serious consideration.

    I think limiting the number of justices a President can appoint is wise, but what happens with the vacancies if the President has already appointed their share of justices?
     
    Dayton3 likes this.
  8. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree. It doesn't matter if the justice is conservative or progressive. What is important is that they are principled.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2020
    Quantum Nerd likes this.
  9. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There won't be any unless a justice dies or steps down during that period. Then of course a president can appoint "more than his or her share". But only to fulfill the remainder of the retiring or dying justices term.
     
  10. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    41,184
    Likes Received:
    16,180
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Supreme Court Justices are strange, they actually DO 'grow with the office' quite often.

    It is,
    after all, generally a man who really believes that Judges and the Law are very important to Democracy who even tries to be a judge in the first place.

    OTOH you don't have to even be a lawyer, let alone a judge, to get appointed. And the appointer in this case is.....
     
  11. Chrizton

    Chrizton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2020
    Messages:
    7,707
    Likes Received:
    3,785
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We need to have 50 Justices---one from each state. DC can have a tie-breaker vice justice
     
  12. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,756
    Likes Received:
    3,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your plan would require a Constitution amendment.

    We like the Constitution.

    We say no.

    It will never pass.
     
  13. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No big deal. We've amended the U.S constitution more than two dozen times. Several for less important reasons.
     
    truth and justice likes this.
  14. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,756
    Likes Received:
    3,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We, republicans have. Democrats not so much.
     
    Bravo Duck likes this.
  15. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,262
    Likes Received:
    16,936
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    as of the PBS/Marist poll of 2019, 57% country supports Roe v Wade, 35% don't, 8% don't know. so, if the voice of the people mean a damn thing, that ls the last thing we need.
    THe supreme court shouldn't be stacked more than 5/4, either way. If it goes 6/3, and dems take over both houses, count on something being done about it. ANd, if McConnel picks some extreme pro life right winger, count on a massive dem turnout like you've never seen . 2018 was nuthin'
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2020
  16. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    31,941
    Likes Received:
    15,602
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No one party should ever have total control. There is a reason the founding fathers came up with checks and balances in our system of govt. They were smart enough to know political power should not be concentrated in the hands of individuals or groups.
     
  17. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,185
    Likes Received:
    62,818
    Trophy Points:
    113
    republicans broke the process when they changed the votes from 60 to 50

    no longer will we have a moderate supreme court that puts the Constitution first, now it will be a partisan SC
     
    Quantum Nerd likes this.
  18. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,762
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    C'mon lefties, just say it. We should appoint justices only when there is a democrat president and majority in the senate.
     
    Rush_is_Right likes this.
  19. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,762
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The moderation of the supreme court has nothing to do with how many senators need to vote. It is a function of the balance of lack of moderation among the justices.
     
  20. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,185
    Likes Received:
    62,818
    Trophy Points:
    113
    60 votes ensures both sides have to agree on the pick, makes it harder to pick partisian hacks
     
    Quantum Nerd likes this.
  21. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree with lengthy term limits for all federally appointed judges and justices. However, I don't think such a constitutional amendment should be so detailed and complex.
     
  22. God & Country

    God & Country Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    4,487
    Likes Received:
    2,837
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's only true if it's the Democrats. Total Republican control is exactly what America needs to repair the damage the country suffered under the Democrats. It would be a good time for real Democrats, if there are any left, to purge their party of leftist scum. The left, Marxists, Progressives, and Socialists are diametrically opposed to our Constitution and do not belong in our government. I suggest that every Democrat voter sit down and read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and try to find anything that supports the left's agenda, you will find none. That is why people like Obama hate the Constitution, it is the only thing between us and their insane dream. He said he wanted to fundamentally change America, the word fundamental means a foundation. The left has been picking away at America's foundation and have perverted or destroyed whatever they could. They have turned the idea of a free press into a propaganda mechanism and now free speech means only speech that they approve of. They have removed God from anything that has to do with the government on the premise that it offends a small minority but the reality is they equate God with morality. They have even gone as far as trying to redefine morality, to make it fluid and adjustable to fit their perverse agenda. For example abortion isn't immoral because a fetus isn't a human being and isn't until it has left the womb and it's a woman's right. They have derided and destroyed the sacred institution of marriage. They demand that we suspend our religious beliefs to accommodate their perverse lifestyles, even pretend that gender is what ever they say it is. All of those things are small potatoes compared with the core of that fundamental change. At the very center of their agenda is the top down destruction of class by destroying capitalism. They want total economic equality by elevating the poor by dragging down the wealthy to where we are all in a single class of true equality. That is what they say but that doesn't mean a middle class. Their idea of economic equality is that they control America's wealth by confiscatory policies and that they use that wealth to pursue their political agenda which is the rule of the masses by an elite few. That would make that single class little more than peasants and them dictatorial and all powerful. It's called Communism. This same political bait and switch has been played over and over always with the same results. To date America has resisted this garbage but since 2008 it has gotten some traction and has infected a lot of clueless young people America's SJWs the BLM and Antifa crowd. They even call it a revolution but what it really is to the Progressive cabal is usurpation, economic appropriation and the seizure of power. It's a new dance to a very tired old song.
     
    mngam and RodB like this.
  23. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    45,409
    Likes Received:
    26,536
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree. That's why SC justices should retire at age 75.
     
  24. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    31,941
    Likes Received:
    15,602
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong. No party should ever have total control. Again, there is a reason the founding fathers set up our govt the way they did. You would be well served to read up on the reasons why.
     
  25. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Direct and quite succinct. Well said.
     

Share This Page