An elected Judiciary???

[jackbourassa]

The system we have now stinks. That someone like Miers can be appointed to the court with no experience (plain and simple cronyism) is an afront to everything this country stands for. Advise and Consent is a joke. The only weapon at our disposal is the unpopular filibuster.

Maybe the only way to have an accountable judiciary is to have the American people elect them. What do you guys think?

[KingFlorez]

1. It would be too devisive

I would prefer an elected judiciary, but it would make it easier to pack the court.

[Cronus Protagonist]

6. I think what we have is already divisive

Not that I have an answer, though :)

http://devil:420/bushfordummies/img/roberts-jack.jpg

[Freddie Stubbs]

2. What makes you think that the American electorate would elect a judiciary

differently than the way it elects it's legislative and executive?

[Charlie Brown]

3. NO NO NO and NO

One of the judicial branch's greatest asset is that it's divorced from public sentiments and political divisions.

In the "red states" all of our judges are elected, and the result is an autocracy of majoritarianism and "moral values" rulings.

Keep the Federal Judiciary independent.

What if Miers turns out to be another Warren or Souter?

[tainowarrior]

4. well...

I'm wary of elected judiciaries. It will introduce the same type of corruption and pandering to the public that accompanies political campaigns.

I however, think that it might be useful (and more democratic) to have the President nominate someone, and have those nominations be ratified by national referenda. That may protect from the campaign shenanigans of elected office (as the person is nominated by the President), but also hold the President accountable to nominating someone that clearly would have the consensus power to attract the people's votes in support of the nomination.

It protects from the campaign partisanship of elections, but also protects from a President like Bush packing the court with ideologues.

I don't know if that works, but I'm throwing out ideas.

[Charlie Brown]

7. Roberts and Miers would easily win nat'l referendums

They're clean-cut professionals. Miers may have a little trouble because she's single. These campaigns would bring out all the same qualities that divide Americans during other campaigns, and they wouldn't stop Bush's picks from being confirmed.

[Drifter]

5. Perhaps a larger majority for confirmation ...

This would force both sides to compromise a little bit more, hopefully creating a more balenced court.

I would rather have 9 moderate Justices
Than 5 / 4 polarized in either direction.

Cheers
Drifter

[tainowarrior]

8. how is it now?

50% + 1? or 2/3?

[Selatius]

16. 2/3rds

Yeah, it should probably be changed to a 4/5ths rule, but I believe Bush got that many to support Roberts, no? If that's the case, the problem may be how these politicians are elected. (Election reform) If you can cut out special interest money from the election process, you're more than likely going to address the problem.

[tainowarrior]

19. i'm not sure

2/3 is enough of a barrier.

We also have to contend, whether we like it or not, that the Congress that exists is purely elected. This is the will of the American people, whether we like it or not. America is a conservative nation.

[Selatius]

20. I agree and disagree

Because a good legislature cannot be elected without an informed citizenry, and I don't think we need to get into the influence the corporate media has over the flow of information in this country needed to make an informed decision.

While it is true that these politicians are elected, it is also true that there is a definite lack of information and discussion over issues that are needed for an informed decision.

[Bucky]

31. Nope, the SCOTI are approved by simple majority vote, (eg Clarence Thomas)

Thomas got confirmed with less than 60 votes. Of course that was back when Democrats had testicles.

[Bucky]

30. It only takes a simple majority vote to confirm appointments, not 2/3rds.

If it took a supermajority, we'd probably never have ended Jim Crowism.

[IntravenousDemilo]

9. How about term limits instead?

Don't change the current procedure, but limit all future terms on SCOTUS to ten years, with retirement age set at 75. You'll need a grandfather clause, though, for all those grandfathers and -mothers currently serving.

[tritsofme]

22. That would require a constitutional amendment

and in the end both parties like their lifetime appointments when they are in power, so I doubt it would happen.

[Dinger]

24. Those Are Excellent Suggestions

Wait till the chimp is gone. Believe!

[tx_dem41]

10. It didn't seem to be a problem with the 37 previous justices that had no..

experience. Why do you want to change a system over one appointeee (who hasn't even been confirmed yet), that you happen to disagree with?

Would you have been all fired up about the appointments of W.H. Taft, William Douglas, Hugo Black or Earl Warren?

[jobycom]

11. Chief Justice Charlton Heston. Justice Schwarzenegger. No way.

It may have problems right now under Bush, but it could be far worse without Senate confirmation and the usual knowledge of the president. Even Reagan appointed good Justices. Who knows, it may even turn out that Bush has, by accident.

Popular vote would lead to worse farce than we've endured for the last five years. The whole point of the court is to have a group of legal minds to control the excesses of popularly elected buffoons.

[longship]

12. No. Don't forget sword cuts both ways.

Part of the beauty of the fed judiciary is that there is continuity across administrations. This has served us amazingly well over the past 200 years. Making them elected positions would only make them much, much more political.

[bowens43]

13. Very bad idea.

The judiciary would then be accountable to those who pay the bills for the campaign. The entire purpose of lifetime appointments is to make sure that the judiciary is independent.

We already have the ability to remove judges from the bench if it becomes necessary. It isn't easy but it can be done.

[MADem]

14. One word--DIEBOLD

And then, we'd have the Supremes voting on their next pal in chambers, should there be an issue with the vote count! Might as well just let THEM pick the next one....

[mcscajun]

15. The whole point is Judicial Independence Not Judicial Accountability

The problem is Bush abandoned fifty years of custom and precedent by rejecting the ABA advance review of all Federal judicial nominees.

The problem is a Republican President and a Republican Senate that collectively turned "Advise and Consent" into a power play.

We don't want accountable judges, subject to the whims of the populace and under pressure from lobbyists, fund-raising demands, and smearing; we want qualified independent judges.

You don't design a system for the exceptions, that's the prime notion. The system works, Most of the Time. We just happen to live in an Exceptional Time.

[shenmue]

17. Interesting concept

The upside is that it would put power directly into the hands of voters. (Well, if we had real elections, but you know what I mean...) The downside is it would lead to the same types of campaign sleaze and craziness as we see in other types of elections.

We do elect some judges, just not the ones at the top levels, so it's not an entirely unknown concept. I don't know if the country is ready for major constitutional change.

It's just that when SC judges are installed the way they are now, even despite the fact that we (are supposed to) have a confirmation process and at least a technical chance to reject them, once they're there, we can't stop them unless they quit or are incapacitated.

It's driving me round the bend that Bush's picks just keep getting more unsuited and weird. As bad as he is, I know he'd pick people I don't like, but come on! Next he's going to appoint one of the security people he bikes with. For crimony!

[KingFlorez]

18. It might work with strict rules

No money or campaigning should be allowed, no party affiliation on the ballot and with some spot being 3 year terms and other 5 year terms. I think only with those rules would it be a good idea.

[jackbourassa]

21. I say it works!!!!

Divide the federal judiciary into 9 circuits, plus DC. Each circuit represents a specific number of states. At the top of each circut is the representative of the Supreme Court (hence we will continue with 9 Justices). There will be elections every 3 years for 3 Justices (it will rotate like the Senate) and each Justice serves one 9 year term. This means that the balance of the court would be up every three years - rather than 30.

This will balance the court. It wouldn't be liberal or conservative. It would be representative of the nation as a whole. Sometimes being left-of-center. Other times being right-of-center. But always being center (since there would probably be 3 solidly Dem seats and 3 solidly rep seats, and the other three would be moderate - could go either way). Contentious issues would be settled by compromise and law, which would be an improvement. Thus, we take away the "culture war" issues that hurt us every election (since they would probably be settled in the courts) and we focus on economic equality instead.

What on earth is wrong with that?

As far as the argument about "Justice Swartzenegger," there would be some restrictions on who could run. You would have to be a member of the bar - in good standing. Age limit. Residency requirements. But that's it.

The court today is packed with ideological loonies. They don't represent the nation in any way. They retire when they want to. Meaning they hold out to be replaced by someone of their own party. Then that President appoints whomever they want. Advise and consent has become a joke.

It's time for an elected judiciary.

[dusty64]

23. With the extremist

controlled secret "voting" machines in place, I'm afraid not.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. I don't want my constitutional rights determined by the majority

The one thing that the Supreme Court should NOT be is accountable to the people. Their job is to interpret the law, no matter what popular will is.

[onenote]

26. I missed the smiley. You were joking right?

Elections gave us chimpy. Elections gave us a repub controlled house and senate. Are these going to be elections for a lifetime job or are judges going to have to stand for re-election -- go out and campaign, raise money, the whole nine yards.

Yep that's the ticket. I'm going to assume you were joking. Good one.

onenote

[jackbourassa]

27. Not lifetime...

In an earlier post I suggested a nine year term.

[texastoast]

28. It all sucks

unless you get the whoredom out of politics. Here in Texas, I watched an active trial lawyer association pack the courts with great liberal thinkers who upheld unreasonable judgments for plaintiffs. I watched the business community here get organized and change the packing to heartless judges who care nothing for right or wrong or the little folks as long as it is good for bid'ness.

Until a good campaign finance reform comes along, everyone will be sucking up to the money.

[no one]

29. We can't just change the constitution

Kerry lost the last election and we have to suffer for his inept campaign.
Maybe next time we can find a Democrat that wants to win.