Should the Supreme Court be popularly elected?

[Free Bird]

Self-explanatory

[TDAS04]

Absolutely not.  SCOTUS should be able to make potentially unpopular decisions without fear of political repercussions.

I would support requiring justices to retire after 20 years, however.

[Never]

No, that would undermine the judicial branch. I don't think that they should have to appeal to the electorate for votes. The Court needs room to make rulings that don't necessarily please the public, as the above poster said.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

That'd be one of the worst things that could happen to the judicial branch.

[SteveRogers]

No, and there's no way to be elected in a nonpartisan manner.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Absolutely not.  SCOTUS should be able to make potentially unpopular decisions without fear of political repercussions.

The thing is, this Supreme Court takes that the wrong way and issues Citizens United, which 80% of the country realizes what a terrible ruling it is.

[Antonio the Sixth]

God no.

[Slander and/or Libel]

SCOTUS should have regular 18 year terms, so that one comes up for appointment every odd-numbered year. Long enough for them to be largely insulated from politics, but removes the perverse incentive to just appoint the youngest people possible.

[Never]

Absolutely not.  SCOTUS should be able to make potentially unpopular decisions without fear of political repercussions.

The thing is, this Supreme Court takes that the wrong way and issues Citizens United, which 80% of the country realizes what a terrible ruling it is.

But there have been times in the past where they made sweeping rulings beneficial to the country that other branches couldn't have gotten away with as easily (I'm thinking of the civil rights decisions during the Warren Court, but I'm sure there are other instances).

[Middle-aged Europe]

I prefer something like the German model myself.

Half of the judges of the Constitutional Court are elected by the Bundesrat, the other half by a committee of the Bundestag. Election requires a two-third majority in the respective body and judges are limited to a single 12-year term.

[Badger]

Of course not. Don't be foolish.

[ElectionsGuy]

No, judges aren't politicians, and shouldn't be elected like them. Its unfortunate that they're appointed by partisan presidents and partisan senate members, but running a campaign to get elected would politicize things way more than they are now.

[politicallefty]

Definitely not. Electing judges is a terrible idea that should not exist anywhere. I'd be supportive of a single 18-year term per Justice, but not much beyond that. It's very dangerous to allow the judiciary to be subject to the political whims of the general public.

[Simfan34]

I'd prefer taking a bullet to my mouth than having an elected high court.

[TNF]

Definitely not. Introducing election would only make the Supreme Court more responsive to bourgeois interests, because the only people capable of running are people that are fantastically rich and allied with the two bourgeois parties.

I would, however, support ending the ability of the President to nominate Justices to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court should be chosen by lot, in the same way that we select juries presently. We should just convert the entire court into one National Jury, which will have the power of judicial review in reserve to strike down acts of Congress that adversely effect working class people. Judges in general should be gotten rid of throughout the criminal justice system and the power to judge given to juries and juries alone. The Jury is the most democratic institution in American society and should be empowered insofar as possible; it's method of selection should be the method by which we select most government officials, with exceptions for extremely specialized fields, but even in those cases, the elected person in question should serve a short term and be subject to recall if he or she does not fulfill the will of those who elect them and be paid only the average workers' wage.

Lifetime tenure for the Court should be abolished as well. No one should ever serve more than 12 years on that body, and they shouldn't be eligible to serve again upon the expiration of that term and should be banned for life after their term from offering legal advice to any entity in society. They should be provided with a generous pension and expense account, though.

[homelycooking]

I think that a higher priority should be to allow for the popular election of the President.

[Vega]

Given today's electoral climate, they'd have to raise lot's of money. Probably mostly from corporations....

That's why I voted no.

[Bojack Horseman]

No, because otherwise you'd end up like Iowa, where the Iowa Supreme Court made a unanimous, correct constitutional ruling on gay marriage, and in the retention election the next year, special interests bought the election to oust them.

Term limits, on the other hand, might be in order.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Absolutely not.  SCOTUS should be able to make potentially unpopular decisions without fear of political repercussions.

The thing is, this Supreme Court takes that the wrong way and issues Citizens United, which 80% of the country realizes what a terrible ruling it is.

But there have been times in the past where they made sweeping rulings beneficial to the country that other branches couldn't have gotten away with as easily (I'm thinking of the civil rights decisions during the Warren Court, but I'm sure there are other instances).

The Warren Court was almost half a century ago. It was almost 30 years after Loving v. Virginia before interracial marriage was as popular as gay marriage is today. This court is way behind the times.

[Never]

Absolutely not.  SCOTUS should be able to make potentially unpopular decisions without fear of political repercussions.

The thing is, this Supreme Court takes that the wrong way and issues Citizens United, which 80% of the country realizes what a terrible ruling it is.

But there have been times in the past where they made sweeping rulings beneficial to the country that other branches couldn't have gotten away with as easily (I'm thinking of the civil rights decisions during the Warren Court, but I'm sure there are other instances).

The Warren Court was almost half a century ago. It was almost 30 years after Loving v. Virginia before interracial marriage was as popular as gay marriage is today. This court is way behind the times.

Perhaps so, but that is not always a negative occurrence. The Supreme Court and judicial branch at large shouldn't be easily swayed by public opinion in the way the legislative and executive branch are. Lagging behind the majority's will could very well be a consequence, but it is possible that this attribute of the Court could prevent some potentially damaging rulings on the future. On the other hand, who's to say that the successor to the Roberts Court won't make positive sweeping rulings in a quick fashion independent of how the public feels? I feel that this issue cuts both ways.