Should We Amend the Constitution to Make Supreme Court Justice Elected Every Four Years?

[konradv]

Agreed...

What should be in place is multi seat districts with preference voting... This means it easier to challange the incumbents with out worrying about primaries..

Primaries and caucusing becomes less powerful which effectively mean power would taken further away from party machines and put more in the voters...

Because of this representatives are thinking more of the whole district rather than there own base..

Multiple representatives from a single district(larger than the present ones, of course) may be a good idea. Baltimore used to have a city council of 18 with six districts electing three each. The city council was lowered to 14 members, which many would see as smaller government, i.e. a good thing. However, there were now 14 individual districts. In the past, if one councilperson wasn’t helping you out, you could appeal to another. Now you’ve only got one and many people are frustrated by perceived favoritism, if their concerns are overlooked, and the political culture has suffered, IMO.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

With the inevitable appointment of the POS Ketanji Brown Jackson should we fix this problem. She obviously has no place being a Supreme Court Justice, let alone a Supreme Court Justice for life. None of them deserve it for life. They aren't non-partisan. They should be held accountable to Americans.

Fuck no

But we should be able to expel them for blatant disregard for the constitution.

 

[Desperado]

No not every 4 years but put a maximum age of 70 for the justices

 

[konradv]

Fuck no

But we should be able to expel them for blatant disregard for the constitution.

You can. It’s called impeachment. It’s never happened to a SC judge, but it has in lower courts.

 

[Independent thinker]

With the inevitable appointment of the POS Ketanji Brown Jackson should we fix this problem. She obviously has no place being a Supreme Court Justice, let alone a Supreme Court Justice for life. None of them deserve it for life. They aren't non-partisan. They should be held accountable to Americans.

No. What we need to do is change the way Supreme Court Justices are chosen and confirmed. There should be a 2/3'rds majority needed for confirmation. We need something that forces moderates to be chosen.

 

[rightwinger]

No. What we need to do is change the way Supreme Court Justices are chosen and confirmed. There should be a 2/3'rds majority needed for confirmation. We need something that forces moderates to be chosen.

It would allow an opposition party to block all appointments

 

[Independent thinker]

It would allow an opposition party to block all appointments

I thought of that. You would need some kind of workaround on that. There could be many ways to achieve this. Of course we are mainly talking about fantasies as neither side would want to change how it is currently done.

 

[Markle]

Wrong

They represent the PEOPLE of those States

That's the House of Representatives. As you well know!

 

[Markle]

It would allow an opposition party to block all appointments

No, it would allow either party to block radical judges. A good thing.

 

[Mac-7]

Politicizing the SCOTUS would be a terrible mistake, and there is a good reason why they have lifetime appointments and are not beholden to election cycles.

Now, should they have a required retirement age of 85? Yes.

Why not term limit federal judges to 12 years?

 

[rightwinger]

No, it would allow either party to block radical judges. A good thing.

NO it would end the Supreme Courts as we know it as we would have gridlock

 

[BackAgain]

Wrong

They represent the PEOPLE of those States

The Senate was designed not to have the Senators represent the People of their respective States; but to have them represent the entirety of their respective States.

The Amendment which changed all that (by having Senators elected by the vote of the people of their respective States) was a stupid American mistake. With that change, their is no real reason anymore for Congress to be bicameral. The change undermined the check and balance of Federalism to a large degree, too.

A bad mistake.

 

[rightwinger]

The Senate was designed not to have the Senators represent the People of their respective States; but to have them represent the entirety of their respective States.

The Amendment which changed all that (by having Senators elected by the vote of the people of their respective States) was a stupid American mistake. With that change, their is no real reason anymore for Congress to be bicameral. The change undermined the check and balance of Federalism to a large degree, too.

A bad mistake.

There are no States without the PEOPLE

We the People of the United States
Not…We the States

 

[BackAgain]

There are no States without the PEOPLE

We the People of the United States
Not…We the States

Thanks corporal obvious. But only half right. The interests of one State may not align with the interests of another State whose people are not the same. (If you live in South Dakota, you cannot legally vote in North Danita.) And the interests of the People of one State may not align with the interests of the People of the entire United States. This is why the Framers employed the check and balance of Federalism.

If what you are saying was true (and it isn’t for the most part), the Constitution would not have made the selection of the various State’s Senators a matter to be determined by their respective State’s legislatures.

The 17th Amendment was a huge mistake. It should be repealed.

 

[rightwinger]

The interests of one State may not align with the interests of another State whose people are not the same. (If you live in South Dakota, you cannot legally vote in North Danita.)

No Shit Sherlock

The PEOPLE of the State vote in THEIR own interests, not the interests of partisan politicians

 

[rightwinger]

The 17th Amendment was a huge mistake. It should be repealed.

17th Amendment was a step towards Democracy

 

[Markle]

There are no States without the PEOPLE

We the People of the United States
Not…We the States

As you know, you would argue with a fencepost. Also, our founding fathers were smart enough to recognize that the states too, needed representation in Congress.

In addition, this is where we are today, Are we not voting ourselves largess? This year, it appears that 57% of workers are paying federal income tax. How do we survive?

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”
― Alexander Fraser Tytler

 

[BackAgain]

No Shit Sherlock

The PEOPLE of the State vote in THEIR own interests, not the interests of partisan politicians

Now. But the way it was originally set up, the Legislature spoke for the interest of the State. As it should be.

 

[BackAgain]

17th Amendment was a step towards Democracy

That is one of the reasons it was a mistake.

It was set up as a check and balance against the prospect of the central government becoming too powerful. We were not designed as a democracy. Great thought was given, in fact, to avoid the risk of a tyranny of a majority. Federalism was part of that.

And, again, of course, there is no need for a bicameral legislative body at all if your notions were true. They aren’t.

 

[postman]

No. What we need to do is change the way Supreme Court Justices are chosen and confirmed. There should be a 2/3'rds majority needed for confirmation. We need something that forces moderates to be chosen.

The new republican party is one that rejects everything democrat. Just look at Merick Garland, who had support from republicans as well as democrats, and would have been confirmed if given a floor vote. But republican opposition means if Jesus Christ himself was up for a senate vote, the republicans would universally oppose because he supported higher taxes, welfare, and universal healthcare.