CDZ Reforming the Supreme Court

[Picaro]

http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2216&context=facpub

The above pdf addresses some of the issues.

Is there a better method of selecting Judges, for the other Federal benches as well, than appointment by professional politicians whose only concerns are packing it with partisan ideological hacks, and have no expertise making them qualified to make such decisions?

Given the size of the country now, does it make sense to expand the number of Justices? the Carrington-Cramton Act and the age issues seem to dominate most of the reform debate, but other reforms are also desirable, and maybe people have some ideas about those; the age issue is well covered already.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Valid thoughts for consideration and discussion, however, we have a pretty intransigent faction that has made a golden idol of the constitution.

 

[2aguy]

http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2216&context=facpub

The above pdf addresses some of the issues.

Is there a better method of selecting Judges, for the other Federal benches as well, than appointment by professional politicians whose only concerns are packing it with partisan ideological hacks, and have no expertise making them qualified to make such decisions?

Given the size of the country now, does it make sense to expand the number of Justices? the Carrington-Cramton Act and the age issues seem to dominate most of the reform debate, but other reforms are also desirable, and maybe people have some ideas about those; the age issue is well covered already.

We need more judges on the Court, to dilute political leanings....and we need a Congressional over ride on Supreme Court decisions.....5, politically appointed lawyers should not be determining what is Constitutional for a country of over 320,000,000 people....

Too much power, in too few hands with life time appointments and no accountability for their decisions...

5, politically appointed lawyers....that needs to change.......

 

[Picaro]

Here's an audit of the Canadian process and how they go about it::

Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process, 2004-2014: A Ten Year Democratic Audit by Adam M. Dodek :: SSRN

 

[Fueri]

I don't know that changing the number would make much difference, as that seems to me to result in just a larger number of political appointees.

At this point, as the OP points out, these people are appointed by politicians and it's pretty clear that the only thing distinguishing these people from normal political hacks are the robes.

And the lifetime appointments. Those I'd do away with. Make it a rolling system whereby each president gets a minimum and maximum number of appointees. In other words each president appoints 2 and must appoint 2. If nobody dies, the longest standing members are out at a set timetable within the first 4 years of a presidency, let's say at the 1 and 2 year mark to prevent the sort of squabbling we see right now in terms of filling the vacancy of Scalia.

If somebody does die and the president has reached his 2 members, congress, or some other body, decides on an appointee. If the president in question gets re-elected, he gets no further appointments beyond that 2 person limit. This limits the impact of a single individual on the bench. If the party that follows his 2 person limit has reached their two person limit it rolls to another body for the same reasons it is taken away from the president.

This is another of the components of our system of checks and balances that is badly broken. Judicial partisanship/activism undermines the very reason for the court's existence, IMO.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Founders believed in a Republican form of government.

The Founders believed justices should be nominated and ratified in a republican fashion.

None of the suggestions above, other than increasing the number of judges, makes sense in terms of the Founders' wisdom.

 

[JoeMoma]

Valid thoughts for consideration and discussion, however, we have a pretty intransigent faction that has made a golden idol of the constitution.

And the constitution should be the standard used for the court to make judgements. For those that don't like what the consituation says, there is an amendment process.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Valid thoughts for consideration and discussion, however, we have a pretty intransigent faction that has made a golden idol of the constitution.

And the constitution should be the standard used for the court to make judgements. For those that don't like what the consituation says, there is an amendment process.

Take it up with the judge.

 

[Fenton Lum]

The Founders believed in a Republican form of government.

The Founders believed justices should be nominated and ratified in a republican fashion.

None of the suggestions above, other than increasing the number of judges, makes sense in terms of the Founders' wisdom.

Yes, the founders had a pretty dim view of the commoners.

 

[Picaro]

And the lifetime appointments. Those I'd do away with. Make it a rolling system whereby each president gets a minimum and maximum number of appointees. In other words each president appoints 2 and must appoint 2. If nobody dies, the longest standing members are out at a set timetable within the first 4 years of a presidency, let's say at the 1 and 2 year mark to prevent the sort of squabbling we see right now in terms of filling the vacancy of Scalia.

If somebody does die and the president has reached his 2 members, congress, or some other body, decides on an appointee. If the president in question gets re-elected, he gets no further appointments beyond that 2 person limit. This limits the impact of a single individual on the bench. If the party that follows his 2 person limit has reached their two person limit it rolls to another body for the same reasons it is taken away from the president.

This is another of the components of our system of checks and balances that is badly broken. Judicial partisanship/activism undermines the very reason for the court's existence, IMO.

This is an interesting idea.

As for increasing the number of Judges, it could increase the case load of cases they could rule on, there is a huge backlog of them, most of them frivolous imo but nonetheless have legal status to be heard, in conjunction with other reforms, like splitting Justices up into panels drawn up by lot for instance, and then the rest reading those decisions and deciding on them in some fashion. The lower Courts perform some of this function, but they are clearly inadequate in clearing of the backlog in the current modern system.

But yes, being political appointees is still the fly in the ointment of real reforms. Electing them isn't a viable option either; don't know what the situation is in other states but we elect a lot of them here in Texas, and it's a disaster in many cases.

 

[Picaro]

The Founders believed in a Republican form of government.

The Founders believed justices should be nominated and ratified in a republican fashion.

None of the suggestions above, other than increasing the number of judges, makes sense in terms of the Founders' wisdom.

Most of 'The Founders' weren't happy with it, and some of them promptly ignored it when it got in the way of their existential needs of the moment. Citing individual 'Founders' as appeals to authority is an exercise in futility, so we're left with interpretations of the Constitution itself as a guiding legal basis, not whatever was PO'ing Jefferson or Adams at some point or other later.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Founders believed in a Republican form of government.

The Founders believed justices should be nominated and ratified in a republican fashion.

None of the suggestions above, other than increasing the number of judges, makes sense in terms of the Founders' wisdom.

Most of 'The Founders' weren't happy with it, and some of them promptly ignored it when it got in the way of their existential needs of the moment. Citing individual 'Founders' as appeals to authority is an exercise in futility, so we're left with interpretations of the Constitution itself as a guiding legal basis, not whatever was PO'ing Jefferson or Adams at some point or other later.

Change "many" to "some" and I will agree with you. And I think the convention was more concerned with getting a document that most could vote for than all the 'constitutional' issues that we struggle with today.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2216&context=facpub

The above pdf addresses some of the issues.

Is there a better method of selecting Judges, for the other Federal benches as well, than appointment by professional politicians whose only concerns are packing it with partisan ideological hacks, and have no expertise making them qualified to make such decisions?

Given the size of the country now, does it make sense to expand the number of Justices? the Carrington-Cramton Act and the age issues seem to dominate most of the reform debate, but other reforms are also desirable, and maybe people have some ideas about those; the age issue is well covered already.

Yes, as I suggested in another thread.

Federal judges , including SCOTUS, should be a join nomination by the President and the highest ranking member of the opposite party in Congress. They should by law have 30 days to present a nomination. If they don't they don't get a paycheck until they send a nomination out. Then the Senate should have 30 days to begin hearings with a 2 week time limit to get those hearings complete. Again , no paychecks if they miss the deadlines until they do.

That means that at MOST a vacancy could remain for 74 days AND it means neither party would be able to ram a partisan ideologue down anyone's throat, even if they held both the White House AND the Senate, the other party would get a say so. You give any one party that much power and they will destroy any notion of bipartisanship.

 

[JakeStarkey]

AND it means neither party would be able to ram a partisan ideologue down anyone's throat is why your suggestion will never happen.

 

[Picaro]

Yes, the founders had a pretty dim view of the commoners.

Yes, and that dim view is expressed throughout the Convention.

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. 1 - Online Library of Liberty