A new method to elect justices to the supreme court?

So based on what was outlined in my post, how do you figure this would be a left wing take over of the court? Since after all, 5 would be appointed by republicans no matter what. And those 5 would have to all agree on the court appointed justices?

 

So far however, no one has presented any clear reason why this would be a horrible idea.

The only reason I can see that someone would be opposed in practice is that they want the court to remain imbalanced in their favor.

 

The only change I would advocate regarding the Supreme Court would be how long the Supreme Court Justices themselves serve.

In most civilized countries, there is an age limit on all judges, including those who serve on their highest courts. In Germany, and in Great Britain (for all judges appointed after 1995), for example, now the mandatory retirement age for all judges is 70.

I would support a "mandatory retirement age" amendment to the Constitution, which was written at a time when most people (including Supreme Court Justices) typically didn't live much beyond 60 (if that long).... It made a lot more sense in the 1790's for a Supreme Court Justice to serve for a "lifetime".

Reminder: today, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 85 years old, with no plans to retire at all, in spite of poor health....

 

Though judges think they are gods and many liberals agree they are really just humsn and imperfect

The best thing is to limit their power

We could start with term limits

12 years seems about right

And lower court rulings that are overturned by the SC reduce the lower court judge’s appointment by one year

 

Considering that the right gets to appoint at least 1/3'd of the court, your point is without merit.

 

If we were to go with such a system, I wouldnt base it on age, but on time served.

I would stagger the terms / retirements so that a new justice was appointed every 4 years. Any president who can serve 2 terms would get to appoint 2 judges.

 

Does that help you sleep? Will the constitution survive your meddling? I doubt it. But, that afterall, is the point. Isn't it? I no longer wonder why there isn't ever any Prep H on the shelves these days...

 

So suggest a better method. there has to be a better way to do it than we currently do.

 

I don't agree with you. I also have had to endure the consequences of the Leftist court my entire life. I look forward to a return to some sanity. Which is what you fear. So instead of enduring, you have a temper tantrum and pout to make it resemble what you want it to look like. There is every likelihood that Trump gets at least two more nominations. At least. prior to 2020. The O was actually right when he said, elections have consequences.

 

No. you suffered a balanced court. What your looking forward to is some form of dominance.

 

How's that?

 

The problem is that assumes that the two parties are equal, and also ignores the possibility of any other parties.

I think 7 to 11 judges is a good number on the Supreme Court.
(Maybe they could have 7 for individual cases and then use the full 11 for decisions that will affect national policy)

 

Its almost comical what lengths liberals will go to undue the results of their election losses...

 

Sure if the President gets to appoint 10 Senators and 40 Representatives and The SCOTUS gets the same. That balance of power thingy.

 

When the elections never occurs to them.

 

For one thing, you're ensconcing two parties into the constitution itself, guaranteeing that no third party can ever rise. As if the Ds and Rs haven't got enough of a duopoly, you're actually trying to make that duopoly constitutionally unassailable. This is obviously harmful to democracy, especially when one of your two choices uses superdelegates to override the voters.

 

Will need a Constitutional Amendment. I'm totally against it. 15 is way too many. 9 is probably too many, in fact. Also, the proposed method doesn't take into account changes in the electorate. We haven't always had Republicans and Democrats.

 

No, it would codify our current political rifts, which are not permanent. I prefer the current method, although I think 9 justices is probably too many. 7 would be better.

 

So basically, since your side lost, you want to change the rules.... There has never been a balanced court.

I'm not sure there is a better method, but there are a lot of worse methods. Your suggestion being one of them.

 

I do agree with the mandatory age limit. I'd say 70 or 75 would be reasonable.

 

So no replacement upon death or voluntary retirement of SCOTUS justices?

 

The founding fathers ensured that we would have nice things.
Now the Democrats want to abolish the electoral college? Nothing but a power grab by a group of people that want to control how people think and behave.
The Democrats right now want to end America.

 

Right now, the hot rumor is that Trump has already picked the replacement for Ginsberg when she either retires, or simply dies. The replacement is said to be Amy Coney Barrett!

Links:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-saving-judge-amy-coney-barret-to-replace-ginsburg-report
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett