Boston Globe: Should (Supreme Court) justices be elected?

[Bill McBlueState]

Should justices be elected?

By Drake Bennett | July 10, 2005

IT'S GOING to be a hot summer in Washington. With ample war chests and poll-polished rhetoric, interest groups all along the ideological spectrum are baring their teeth even before President Bush reveals his nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Progress for America, a pro-Bush nonprofit, has already issued a mocking "Liberal 10-Step Plan for Judicial Character Assassination" to pre-empt any criticisms of Bush's pick. NARAL Pro-Choice America has made plans to e-mail 800,000 of its supporters a call to arms within hours of a nomination.

The Supreme Court appointment process, in other words, today looks a lot like every other political campaign, complete with warring newspaper editorials, TV ads, blast faxes, opposition research, polling, and all the rest. It's hard to reconcile this public circus with the Supreme Court described by the Founding Fathers, loftily removed from the scrum of partisan politics. Today, as we subject prospective justices to so many of the indignities of a run for elected office, have we dragged the Court irreversibly into the political fray?

Richard Davis, a political science professor at Brigham Young University, says we have, and that we might as well stop kidding ourselves about it. In his new book, "Electing Justice: Fixing the Supreme Court Nomination Process" (Oxford), he describes today's confirmation battles as "an untenable situation--a reality that looks only vaguely familiar to the formal structure designed for it more than 200 years ago and a process that no longer reflects reality."

"We have now created a process that is to a great extent driven by public opinion," he said in a phone interview Thursday. Today, as Davis writes in the book, "Selecting justices for the Supreme Court is an election without voters," with all of the sound and fury that implies. The solution, as he sees it, is to go ahead and bring in the electorate: Davis wants Supreme Court justices not to be nominated by the president and then confirmed by the Senate, but instead elected by popular vote.

continued at The Boston Globe

bypass registration at BugMeNot.com

[napi21]

1. I don't think so. AS bad as this nomination system seems, I

think it would be worse if these judges had to raise $$ for an election! Then you really would have corporate influence!

It's survived as is for a long time, and it should stay that way!

[Bill McBlueState]

3. that's a serious concern

In a number of states, elected Supreme Court judges are bought and paid for at election time just like everyone else. No reason to believe the federal process would be any cleaner.

[Demeter]

2. At The Least, Presidents Should Be Elected

Why not start reform where it counts?

[HomerRamone]

4. They should be nominated by someone who was genuinely elected

and when it is shown, because of rigged elections, October Surprises, whatever, that their appointment was illegitimate they should have to be re-confirmed (or not)...

[indepat]

5. It's likely the people would do no better job electing the Supremes than

they have in electing the president.

[applegrove]

6. Absolutely not. The last thing we need are justices that are political.

Then unqualified ones will get in. Remember Thomas? Imagine if you had 12 of them. Political Hacks who owe people for their posts.

[BlueStateGirl]

7. Brillant idea, jackass. Let's make the Supreme Court beholden

to Special interests and lobbyists.
Jesus jumped up Christ these people irritate me.

[silvershadow]

8. this is a horrible idea

for all the reasons already mentioned and many more. At least with the current system there is a close examination of the nominee by members of the Judiciary Comittee during the nomination hearings, where important issues can be addressed. I doubt the sheep would pay any attention at all the importance of such issues during an election.