How should judges and justices be appointed?

[redeye]

It seems idiotic to me to have the one branch of government that's supposed to be free from politics appointed solely by political bodies with no professional input (presidents up to and excluding Dubya consulted the ABA for nominations, but the ABA's position was just a suggestion).

I do think that elected officials should have some input, but professional bodies should still have a formal share of the nomination/confirmation process. The best solution IMO is to have judges and justices appointed with the concurrnece of three of four bodies, of which two are political (i.e. the president and the senate) and two are not (one is the ABA and the other is either the National Lawyers' Guild or a board of the deans of the 25 best law schools in the USA). On the one hand, politicians won't be able to push extremists who have no idea what they're doing like Thomas and Estrada (Scalia is an extremist who has a very good idea what he's doing), and on the other, there will still be some influence of elected officials over the appointment of judges and justices.

What do you think?

[BurtWorm]

1. I think appointments for life are anathema to democracy

no matter which branch of government they're in. I believe regular turnover in the Supreme Court would go much further toward keeping the court honest than installing lifers with secret political agendas. I would amend the constitution to give each president one appointee per term (subject to Congressional approval, of course).

[redeye]

3. 36 year terms, in other words?

Besides, regular turnover means that justices will do what is popular rather than what is right. Would Goodwin have ruled the "under god" part of the pledge unconstitutional had he been subject to review? I don't think so.

[BurtWorm]

6. Maybe three a term?

I don't believe life terms prevent judges from acting politically. Bush v. Gore forever disillusioned me of that.

[SoCalDem]

2. I posted this one a while back......My thoughts....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=43531&mesg_id=43531&listing_type=search

SoCalDem  (1000+ posts) Mon Jul-14-03 09:59 PM
Original message
The Supreme Court DOES need a complete overhaul..


If you think about it, the extended life expectancy has totally changed what the founding fathers intended..

By the time someone would have a chance at being picked, they would have had to have been in their 50's (at least).. and back then people did not live much past 60..(most people)... so they really intended that any one person would probably not serve more than 10 years or so, and since the presidents served 8 years, their "influence" would not usually linger for decades like it does now..

If someone like Clarence gets in at 40 something, he/she COULD serve for 40 years.. That is pure nonsense..

I think that since people are living longer, they either need to set a minimum age of ...say 60 and limit their tenure to a maximum of age 70...unless they want to actually stand for an extension BY re-vote of congress.. That would eliminate the "stacking" of the court..

so...whaddaya think??

[redeye]

4. Okay...

...first, age limits are a bad idea because they prohibit promising, relatively young judges (e.g. Scalia, who was 50 when he was appointed) from entering the courts. Second, presidents won't have so much effect on the judicial nomination process if they are only one body out of four that nominate judges, so there won't be the problem that was presistent thruout the New Deal of a conservative SCOTUS that destroyed many of the programs of the era.

[SoCalDem]

5. 50 is not a problem

but they do NOT need to serve for life.. Times change, sensibilities change.. The ideological slant ahould be avoided at ALL costs.. Term limits would mandate an ever-shifting balance...and prevent "stacking" the court by a Bush-like idealogue.. It's like controlling things from the grave..

There is no reason on earth that a FAILED president's choices should contiinue to hold court positions..

[Hubert Flottz]

7. With a polygraph and drug test!

Afterall, they have the power to say someone should live or die!

[redeye]

8. I also happen...

...to support abolishing the death penalty, but I see your point.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

9. Appointments should be for a certain term...

such as 10-15 years. Many states have a law that gives a specific term. NO JUSTICE SHOULD BE APPOINTED FOR LIFE!!!