My Idea for electing Supreme Court justices

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

OK, so it's clear that the SC - a bunch of hyperpowered geriatrics that pretends to be unpoliticised, even if they blates ain't - is getting a bit crazy. The only reason anybody likes the Court is that they are less embarassing than Congress, which isn't the world's most ringing endorsement. So here's my idea to fix it:

1) Justices have 18 year terms (not term limits though, incumbent justices can run again. This introduces some accountability, without being to mad (i.e. kicking people off the bench when they're actually pretty good nominees.

2) Have multiple potential Justices apply for the same position when it comes up (which would be at the beginning of each new Congress - i.e. the first act of a new Congress would be to elect a new Justice (i.e. every single Congress would select a new Justice - or pick the old one - from a pool of candidates.)

3)  The new judge should be picked by IRV of the candidates and (importantly) via a secret ballot of the Senate. The secret ballot prevents the hysterical politicisation of the Court, the litmus testing etc. (this is onw issue where "sensible moderates" have a point - I'd  rather have the Senate pick candidates that are the median ideology if uts members than have a court of opposites)

4) unexpected vacancies should be elected by a special election, and the justice will serve the rest of the deceased/retired/disgraced justice's term.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Anyone who believes judicial elections, be they by the legislature or by the people would cure the ills bedeviling the court need only look to the States to see the folly of that belief.  That said, there is no constitutional requirement that SCOTUS have a fixed sized.  Having the the President nominate a new justice at the start of each Congress and not bother with nominating "replacements" when they die or retire would be a way to prevent the lame duck nomination fiasco we now face and it wouldn't require a Constitutional amendment.

[Clark Kent]

Not a terrible idea, especially your first point, which I agree with very strongly. Still, I agree that Supreme Court justices should not be elected. I'd prefer if we kept the current system, but with term lengths (but as you said, not term limits) implemented.

[Mr. Smith]

Anyone who believes judicial elections, be they by the legislature or by the people would cure the ills bedeviling the court need only look to the States to see the folly of that belief.  That said, there is no constitutional requirement that SCOTUS have a fixed sized.  Having the the President nominate a new justice at the start of each Congress and not bother with nominating "replacements" when they die or retire would be a way to prevent the lame duck nomination fiasco we now face and it wouldn't require a Constitutional amendment.

But Congress changes every two years, that's two Justices per term.

Why not just one justice at the beginning of the presidency, with no replacements and no re-election appointments?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I understand why people dislike electing judges, but it's not like judges aren't effectively elected already and - tbh - I prefer overpowering the legislature to overpowering the executive branch. The POTUS is a ridiculously overpowered office as it is.

Also the secret ballot would end a lot of the issues people have with elected judges (i.e. there would be no pressure for parties to close ranks around or against a nominee, etc). It would likely lead to a lot of bland moderate hero judges, but I'll take that over the current situation.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I understand why people dislike electing judges, but it's not like judges aren't effectively elected already and - tbh - I prefer overpowering the legislature to overpowering the executive branch. The POTUS is a ridiculously overpowered office as it is.

Also the secret ballot would end a lot of the issues people have with elected judges (i.e. there would be no pressure for parties to close ranks around or against a nominee, etc). It would likely lead to a lot of bland moderate hero judges, but I'll take that over the current situation.

The problem isn't so much the initial election; it's reelection.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Anyone who believes judicial elections, be they by the legislature or by the people would cure the ills bedeviling the court need only look to the States to see the folly of that belief.  That said, there is no constitutional requirement that SCOTUS have a fixed sized.  Having the the President nominate a new justice at the start of each Congress and not bother with nominating "replacements" when they die or retire would be a way to prevent the lame duck nomination fiasco we now face and it wouldn't require a Constitutional amendment.

But Congress changes every two years, that's two Justices per term.

Why not just one justice at the beginning of the presidency, with no replacements and no re-election appointments?

Because the Court needs to be larger, not smaller than it is today. Just to keep on average nine justices at one per term would require an average term of 36 years and only one Justice so far has made it that long on the Court. Ideally, there would be thirteen, one per court of appeals.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Why 14 years? Seems to me that 18 makes more sense, if we're sticking with 9 members on the court for the time being. That way one seat opens up every two years (unless someone dies or steps down, in which case an appointment is made to the remainder of that term).

Agreed with what everyone else said about elections. Just a bad, bad idea.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Anyone who believes judicial elections, be they by the legislature or by the people would cure the ills bedeviling the court need only look to the States to see the folly of that belief.  That said, there is no constitutional requirement that SCOTUS have a fixed sized.  Having the the President nominate a new justice at the start of each Congress and not bother with nominating "replacements" when they die or retire would be a way to prevent the lame duck nomination fiasco we now face and it wouldn't require a Constitutional amendment.

But Congress changes every two years, that's two Justices per term.

Why not just one justice at the beginning of the presidency, with no replacements and no re-election appointments?

Because the Court needs to be larger, not smaller than it is today. Just to keep on average nine justices at one per term would require an average term of 36 years and only one Justice so far has made it that long on the Court. Ideally, there would be thirteen, one per court of appeals.

I do agree that the ideal SCOTUS size is larger than 9 justices, but I feel like any attempt to change that would really be opening Pandora's box.  Especially after the level of acrimony over Scalia's seat right now, any attempt to add seats, even in a politically evenhanded way (1 seat now, 1 more seat 4 years from now, and so on) would quickly lead to SCOTUS = House of Lords whenever one party gets full control federally.  And I'd rather not end up with e.g. the President striking down state and local laws by executive order and a stacked SCOTUS saying "whatever."

I don't think the enmity between Congress and the President has risen to the level it was during Andrew Johnson's presidency when Congress shrank the size of the Court so as to deny him the chance to nominate Justices.  Besides, politically a scheme such as I proposed could probably be enacted at the start of a second presidential term, to take effect at the beginning of the next presidential term.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Why 14 years? Seems to me that 18 makes more sense, if we're sticking with 9 members on the court for the time being. That way one seat opens up every two years (unless someone dies or steps down, in which case an appointment is made to the remainder of that term).

Agreed with what everyone else said about elections. Just a bad, bad idea.

Because, err, I can't count lol.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Elected judgeships are generally a terrible idea, but I would support having each justice serve an 18-year term rather than a lifetime appointment, with appointments staggered out every two years to guarantee that each president appoints two justices per term.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Elected judgeships are generally a terrible idea, but I would support having each justice serve an 18-year term rather than a lifetime appointment, with appointments staggered out every two years to guarantee that each president appoints two justices per term.

Yup, have their terms end, for instance, on 1/20/2018 and 1/20/2020, one year and three years into a presidential term. Or maybe to keep the election year stuff back, bump those back six months.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Elected judgeships are generally a terrible idea, but I would support having each justice serve an 18-year term rather than a lifetime appointment, with appointments staggered out every two years to guarantee that each president appoints two justices per term.

Yup, have their terms end, for instance, on 1/20/2018 and 1/20/2020, one year and three years into a presidential term. Or maybe to keep the election year stuff back, bump those back six months.

In this system, what would happen when someone dies on the Court?  Is the next appointment for the remainder of that term, or would the clock reset?

Remainder of the term, since that president would already have the two regular appointments coming up. If the goal is regularity, then each seat would have to be up when its time came up, no?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

OK, so it's clear that the SC - a bunch of hyperpowered geriatrics that pretends to be unpoliticised, even if they blates ain't - is getting a bit crazy. The only reason anybody likes the Court is that they are less embarassing than Congress, which isn't the world's most ringing endorsement. So here's my idea to fix it:

1) Justices have 18 year terms (not term limits though, incumbent justices can run again. This introduces some accountability, without being to mad (i.e. kicking people off the bench when they're actually pretty good nominees.

Fixed term is a good idea, however I'm against Justices running for reelection, as it would led to them to politicize even more out of purely electoral concern. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

OK, so it's clear that the SC - a bunch of hyperpowered geriatrics that pretends to be unpoliticised, even if they blates ain't - is getting a bit crazy. The only reason anybody likes the Court is that they are less embarassing than Congress, which isn't the world's most ringing endorsement. So here's my idea to fix it:

1) Justices have 18 year terms (not term limits though, incumbent justices can run again. This introduces some accountability, without being to mad (i.e. kicking people off the bench when they're actually pretty good nominees.

Fixed term is a good idea, however I'm against Justices running for reelection, as it would led to them to politicize even more out of purely electoral concern. 

This. A single, non-renewable 18-year term seems right to me.

[Kingpoleon]

I agree with this only if combined with Madison's 'joint veto' idea and True Federalist's plan.

[Ljube]

Why fix something that isn't broken? The Supreme Court works just fine.

[Leinad]

Why fix something that isn't broken?

Well how can you have fun on the internet with that attitude?

Most of the fun in life (for me at least) is finding new ways to do old crap.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You lost me at the word "electing".

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You lost me at the word "electing".

I really like federal court term limits, but I'm also not into electing any judges.  The only case where I could support it would be as an emergency backdrop to resolve confirmation battles like what's happening right now with Scalia's seat.  When there hasn't been a confirmation by the next general election, perhaps we should have the senate majority and the president refer their top choices to the GE ballot?

Well at least you are only half misguided on this.


Court term limits obliterate equal justice, degrading it on a cyclical basis determined by the length remaining in the term.

As for elected Judges, they became essentially another branch of the legislature, which is a trend that has already progressed too far as it is.

[Gary J]

How about preserving the appointment by the President and confirmation by the Senate model, but introduce a minimum age for appointment of 50 and a mandatory retirement age of 70. In practice most Supreme Court Justices would serve about 15 years and there would be more frequent opportunities to refresh the membership of the court.

[RaphaelDLG]

I can't wait until the first campaign commercial for justice Scalia jr., Preceded by his first $1,000 a plate dinner.

I think instead of law school pedigrees we should look to commercials to see who's a real American/has castrated pigs in the past.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I can't wait until the first campaign commercial for justice Scalia jr., Preceded by his first $1,000 a plate dinner.

I think instead of law school pedigrees we should look to commercials to see who's a real American/has castrated pigs in the past.

It has already happened here at the state level.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I can't wait until the first campaign commercial for justice Scalia jr., Preceded by his first $1,000 a plate dinner.

I think instead of law school pedigrees we should look to commercials to see who's a real American/has castrated pigs in the past.

You lost me at the word "electing".

learn to read lol

[RaphaelDLG]

I can't wait until the first campaign commercial for justice Scalia jr., Preceded by his first $1,000 a plate dinner.

I think instead of law school pedigrees we should look to commercials to see who's a real American/has castrated pigs in the past.

You lost me at the word "electing".

learn to read lol

Touche