Should Supreme Court Justices be elected?

[Nym90]

I've often thought that Supreme Court Justices could be elected in a nationwide election, but to a 10 year term. Thus, 2 justices would be up for reelection every 2 years, except in years ending in 0, we would have the Chief Justice up for election.

Pros/Cons to this idea? People often talk about how much they hate unelected judges imposing their will on the people, perhaps should the Supreme Court and maybe also lower court judges be directly elected? It's something worth considering.

[Nym90]

Addendum: If a Supreme Court Justice resigns or dies, the President still gets to appoint a replacement subject to Senate approval as now, and that person serves until the next election for their seat.

[Beet]

I don't know about this idea. How would you respond to the criticism that this compromises the integrity and independence of the Court?

[© tweed]

After some thought, no.  But if you were going to have elections, you should have 9 year terms and have an election every year.

[Nym90]

That's certainly a good point, Beet. I'm not even sure if I support it myself, I mostly wanted to throw it out there for debate more than anything. Certainly the fact that justices would have to run would make them more likely to do what the people want rather than what the "right" thing to do is, if those two conflict. But it seems that a lot of people think it's gone too far the other way, and that the courts trample over public opinion to impose their own values. Having a long term (10 years) would ensure that they are still mostly insulated from political pressure. They don't have to run very often. It's somewhat of a compromise, they still have longer terms than everyone else, but the people do also have a say as well.

[Beet]

That's certainly a good point, Beet. I'm not even sure if I support it myself, I mostly wanted to throw it out there for debate more than anything. Certainly the fact that justices would have to run would make them more likely to do what the people want rather than what the "right" thing to do is, if those two conflict. But it seems that a lot of people think it's gone too far the other way, and that the courts trample over public opinion to impose their own values. Having a long term (10 years) would ensure that they are still mostly insulated from political pressure. They don't have to run very often. It's somewhat of a compromise, they still have longer terms than everyone else, but the people do also have a say as well.

Yes I think there is a case to be made for giving the people their say. After all, the Court does rule on some pretty controversial topics... and once ruled upon they're generally not overturned, despite a few high profile cases. On the other hand, its interesting to note that even though FDR lost his court packing plan, he was able to change the thrust of the Court by appointing new Justices when old ones retired. Right now the Court is decently balanced, even though 7 of the 9 Justices were appointed by Republicans, because for most of the past 30 years, American has seen divided government (President/Senate not of the same party). I agree the Court is a very "lagging" indicator. I expect a couple of Justices to step down between now and the end of 2008, so this election could determine some of the new confirms.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well, there is nothing that says that there has to nine jusges on the Supreme Court, but if you have to have elected judges they should be either elected for life or not be eleigibe for a second term.  Apellate judges should never have to worry about reelection.

[Nym90]

Notice my post said "could", not "should".

[ATFFL]

2 appointed by the Senate
2 by the House.
2 by the President (no approval)
2 Elected directly by the people
The CHief Justice would also be elected by the people nationally.

10 year term of office, no term limit, no age restriction.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No. However I believe they should not be appointed for life, but rather 18 year terms, with a new appointee coming up ever 2 years.

[WMS]

One 10-year term in any one position, no re-appointment or re-election, depending on the system. So while a judge could, for example, serve 10 years on the Federal Appellate Court, 10 years on the Federal Court of Appeals, and 10 years on the Supreme Court, they could never serve for 11+ years on any one of them.

So, no re-election or re-appointment pressures on them, but also a limit on their ability to defy the will of the people.

[migrendel]

I believe the consequences of an elected Supreme Court could be disastrous. The freedom to decide cases on their merits and not on public opinion would no longer exist.

When I hear about an elected Supreme Court, I remember how bitterly controversial Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, Miranda v. Arizona, Loving v. Virginia, Engel v. Vitale, Texas v. Johnson, and Lawrence v. Texas were when first decided. All of those cases affirmed human freedom and the dignity and worth of all of our citizens. I cannot imagine what calamities could have occured if an Earl Warren, William O. Douglas, Harry Blackmun, William Brennan, or Thurgood Marshall was a victim of a coordinated attempt to be unseated, only to be replaced by a judge who cares not about what the Constitution says, but about what they would prefer to be our nation's policy. I daresay the legacy of Constitutional liberty, crafted by dedicated jurists, would be far less rich when the time came to pass it on to our children.

In short, for liberty to continue, the status quo must be preserved.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

People often talk about how much they hate unelected judges imposing their will on the people

If judges stuck to interpreting the law as is written, instead of trying to be social activists with gavels, this wouldn't be a problem.

The solution is not to elect judges.  The solution is appoint constructionist judges.  If the laws are deemed unfair, it's the reponsibility of the people to elect legislators who will change them.  If the people don't do that... well, we get exactly the government we deserve, don't we?

[minionofmidas]

How about this...
appoint judges to nine-year terms, three judges to be appointed every three years - one judge to be appointed by the president, one by the Senate, one by the House. Second term impossible. Chief Justice to be chosen by the President from those in their 7th year on the court; can't be someone he personally appointed to the court.

(Braggart points if this sounds familiar to anybody)

[acsenray]

In my view, one of the main reasons for having the federal judiciary is to "defy the will of the people," or, rather, as I would put it, to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

[John Dibble]

No - the system is by no means perfect, even the framers knew that, but it is still a balanced system. Our government is much more democratic than it was before, we don't need it to be more democratic. Having government accountable to the people is good, but too much democracy can lead to oppression by the majority.

Also, just so people know, the number of Supreme Court justices is determined by Congress - they could change the max at any time they please.

[minionofmidas]

How about this...
appoint judges to nine-year terms, three judges to be appointed every three years - one judge to be appointed by the president, one by the Senate, one by the House. Second term impossible. Chief Justice to be chosen by the President from those in their 7th year on the court; can't be someone he personally appointed to the court.

(Braggart points if this sounds familiar to anybody)

I see nobody is interested in braggart points...

[12th Doctor]

No, a majority Liberal Supreme Court is better than an elected conservative Court.  The very idea that the Supreme Court woudl become another popularity contest sickens me.  Look what it did to the Senate (not that I woudl support going back).  the quality of the average Senator has declined sharply over the past century.

[Akno21]

No, a majority Liberal Supreme Court is better than an elected conservative Court.  The very idea that the Supreme Court woudl become another popularity contest sickens me.  Look what it did to the Senate (not that I woudl support going back).  the quality of the average Senator has declined sharply over the past century.

And vice versa. There are many cases in which the court's decisions are unpopular. If they had re-election at stake, I think they would make a different decision.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No, a majority Liberal Supreme Court is better than an elected conservative Court.  The very idea that the Supreme Court woudl become another popularity contest sickens me.  Look what it did to the Senate (not that I woudl support going back).  the quality of the average Senator has declined sharply over the past century.

Actually, I would be in favor of repealing the 17th Amendment and returning the selection of Senators to the states instead of the people.

[Rixtex]

The Supreme Court should remain appointed for the reason cited by Acsenray.

And, I second Ernest's suggestion. The idea behind the Senate was to give the state's representation, not pander to public opinion. The House does enough  pandering for all.

[muon2]

In IL the judges and justices are elected.  An elected judge serves for a term and then rather than face reelection, faces a retention vote after 10 years (6 years for circuit court judges). This takes the pressure off a judge facing an opponent, and they are able to better deal with cases without looking at  the political ramifications. The retention vote in IL requires 60% to vote in favor of retention or it becomes a vacancy.

When a vacancy occurs, the Supreme Court appoints the temporary replacement, but the vacancy is filled by election on the next even-numbered year (primary and general election).

[Posterity]

In my view, one of the main reasons for having the federal judiciary is to "defy the will of the people," or, rather, as I would put it, to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

Agreed.

Judges need to be as impartial as humanly possible.  Holding elections for judges would most likely cause them to base their rulings on the opinion of the public majority, which may have no regard for protecting the rights of individuals in the minority.

If federal judges are not performing in the best interest of the country, then Congress should use their power of impeachment.  Simple as that.

[??????????]

I have a question for everyone posting here.

We currently have many judges across the nation legislating from the bench. How do we stop judges from doing this? What are some solutions to solving this problem? I can not currently think of any answer.

[John Dibble]

I have a question for everyone posting here.

We currently have many judges across the nation legislating from the bench. How do we stop judges from doing this? What are some solutions to solving this problem? I can not currently think of any answer.

Short of taking away judicial review from the courts, nothing(or make more state constitutional amendments, which would also be bad, amending constitutions on a whim is a terrible idea). Personally, I'd rather have the courts that use judicial review sometimes to legislate than courts that have no judicial review.