Supreme Court Reform

[Green Line]

Both sides need to face it - the current situation is unsustainable.  We’re eventually going to hit a point of extended divided government where multiple seats are left vacant at a time.  We are heading for a crisis.  Both sides need to disarm and agree to a radical compromise regarding the appointment process.  What should happen?  Term limits wont solve the fundamental issue here.  There needs to be a way to take it totally out of the hands of partisans.  A requirement that justices receive a majority from both parties?  Judges reccomended by the ABA???

[Xeuma]

Amend the Constitution to require a 3/5 or higher majority to confirm all nominations.

Also require each nomination to have an up-or-down vote, but I'm not sure how to have that instituted.

[Green Line]

Amend the Constitution to require a 3/5 or higher majority to confirm all nominations.

Also require each nomination to have an up-or-down vote, but I'm not sure how to have that instituted.

I would be ok with 3/5 but I think 2/3 would be preferable.  With 2/3 it leaves no option but for a significant part of the minoritity to support a nomine.  If we don't have some kind of reform within the next 10-15 years this country is going to fall apart.  I wish our leaders were actually interested in solving this.

[Sumner 1868]

Direct election of Supreme Court judges. The judiciary is inherently partisan and pretending otherwise is denial at this point.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Amend the Constitution to require a 3/5 or higher majority to confirm all nominations.

All a supermajority requirement would do is make the concern noted by the OP worse, not better.

[Virginiá]

All a supermajority requirement would do is make the concern noted by the OP worse, not better.

If neither party can expect to win the required number of seats to unilaterally confirm justices, I imagine they would stop acting like this. There is no point if you literally can't ram through justices even with a "normal" Senate majority. Likewise, there would be no point in holding a seat open because they would know that the opposition would just reciprocate and they don't end up getting the seat anyway in the end.

But before you say my last statement proves your point, I only mean to suggest that there might be a small period after the reform where the parties instinctively resort to old tactics, having not yet been burned by the new system. Eventually the high stakes maneuvering will end because they will know there is no point.

[muon2]

Personally I like an idea that was floated during the Garland delay. Set the SCOTUS at 8 justices and have a Senate Rule that they will only confirm nominees associated with a party so as to maintain a 4-4 balance. If SCOTUS is stuck at 4-4 the Appellate Court decision stands. It would take at least 1 justice crossing joining with the other side to break a tie and resolve an Appellate decision.

Part of this appeals to me since the IL Board of Elections works on a similar principle. It is 4-4 by party and it takes 5 votes to pass a motion. It has worked well to keep an unwanted majority from putting their thumbs on election decisions.

[Virginiá]

Part of this appeals to me since the IL Board of Elections works on a similar principle. It is 4-4 by party and it takes 5 votes to pass a motion. It has worked well to keep an unwanted majority from putting their thumbs on election decisions.

I like the idea in theory but it doesn't work if one side is constantly operating in bad faith. North Carolina is the most notorious example of that right now. They want a perfectly split board because they can force counties to default to 1 early voting site by just obstructing early voting decisions. Obviously this could be solved by having "default" plans adhere to a proportional formula, but still. Not that I necessarily think SCOTUS operates in bad faith, but that the general idea of a split partisan balance for any type of board/court can have its drawbacks. Especially when each side has diametrically opposing beliefs on certain subjects.

Although tbh at this point, that USSC idea could be useful for voting rights. But that is more of an example of how much we are regressing than anything else.

[MarkD]

Direct election of Supreme Court judges. The judiciary is inherently partisan and pretending otherwise is denial at this point.

Because of how many partisan and/or ideologically-driven Supreme Court Justices we have had for several decades, I understand why you feel so cynical. But it is not "inherent" that the Court will always be this way in the future. The Court has not always been full of nothing but ideological hacks. Some Justices have truly been objective and were true assets to our system of government, and that includes Joseph Story, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Benjamin Cardozo, and Hugo Black. If we had a Court that was filled with people like those, we should not be holding direct elections for the Court. It is too inaccurate and too cynical to hold that we can't ever have a Court that has truly objective interpreters of law. It can happen if most Americans start insisting that is what we should have.

[OBD]

Allow each president 1 appointment per term minimum and 2 maximum.