any thoughts on a better way to select a supreme court judge?

[bluestarone]

I've often wondered if it's even possible to change the way it's done now. That lifetime guarantee position seems a little unfair, because other government positions are limited. What would the process be to undo this? and would we want to?

[hlthe2b]

1. Impeach them if they are later found to have lied in confirmation hearings;

develop a panel of retired Federal appelate judge to review conflict of interests and make the Supreme Court justices subject to removal if they fail to follow those guidelines.

[ProudLib72]

15. I agree with this

Only one justice has ever been impeached. It's time to make impeachment a real threat. So far this has been the "forgotten option". Should include ethics violations, too, and be made retroactive. Then, finally, Thomas can be removed.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. It's in the Constitution, so would be very hard if not impossible to change.

The reason for the lifetime appointment is so judges would be less influenced by politics than if they had to run for the office.

[bluestarone]

4. Yea i do get that

I'm thinking that years in advance Names of possible judges should be put in some type folder THEN when one is needed take and put names in a hat and let President draw one! So ALL (Dems and Repubs) have equal opportunity? This is crazy i'm sure BUT it would do away with one party control of the laws???

[unblock]

6. Unfortunately, great structures set up by true statesmen are only as good as the people in them

They set up a structure to try to partisan judges by having them avoid having to campaign for their seat.

So instead, partisan elected officials now simply appoint justices they know will be partisan.

The republicans underlying problem is that neither the president nor the senate are truly democratic institutions (nor is the house, for that matter). Republicans have an advantage in all three cases due to gerrymandering and small state effects.

If we could restore balance in the presidency and the senate, that would go a long way toward restoring sanity to the appointment of justices.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. The framers of the Constitution were men of the Enlightenment

who believed that there were such creatures as honorable people and that they would want to serve the government; and they also set up a system of checks and balances because they also understood that not everybody was honorable. But I don't think they ever anticipated the level of uncontrolled corruption that the Trump administration and the GOP congress has brought about.

[unblock]

13. Indeed. They thought of tyrants as individuals.

So they gave congress and the courts powers to keep a tyrannical president in check.

They didn’t figure on a collective of tyrants gaining control of all three branches of government.

They also assumed the media would work to expose tyranny and bring them down.

[IADEMO2004]

3. The problem is us. Voters

[bluestarone]

5. i agree with that too

But i feel the President has too much power the way it is now!

[unblock]

8. Voters could do better, but its hard to blame us when most of us want democrats.

If it weren’t for all the voting suppression and disenfranchisement and gerrymandering and the electoral college and voting machines and polling place shenanigans and other crap, democrats would be crushing it these days.

It’s easy to say more people should vote, and of course they should, but we’d already be winning in a remotely fair contest already.

So while the *solution* might be we the voters, the *problem* is really other factors.

[genxlib]

7. I would like to set the appointments to a fixed number of years

Say 10 or 15. Then I would couple that with a generous retirement and prohibition against any future work. That would avoid anyone returning to the workforce and the potential complications/corruption that brings.

That way, we are not saddled with super young justices just because they can live another 40 years. And it keeps a rotation that is not based on the randomness of death.

[bluestarone]

9. i'm afraid we're stuck with LIFETIME Appointments i guess BUT

Sure would like a fairer way that it's done!!

[Binkie The Clown]

10. Any candidate must be UNANIMOUSLY approved by the already sitting supreme court justices.

And to remain on the court they must pass the Bar Exam every year, just to be sure they are still functioning mentally.

[TheSmarterDog]

12. It depends on who runs the Senate.

In the past, USSC and other Fed judge nominees were routinely nominated, then confirmed or rejected within 30-60 days. It's the GOP who made it a months-long ordeal.

[X_Digger]

14. I don't think it should change. We have elected judges here in TX, and they're partisan as shit.

They've got a constituency to please, and they take great glee in touting precedent to score points with donors- even knowing that their bad decisions will be overturned.

[Demsrule86]

16. There is no better way that could ever happen.

[bluestarone]

17. guess your right there!!