Supreme Court members are elected

How would American politics have transpired if all members of the Supreme Court were elected by the people (like the members of the executive and legislative branches)?

The Supreme Court members could still have life membership.
 
What if someone introduced term limits as part of the package? You can take them or leave them in this WI.
 

Driftless

Donor
It'd be even more politicized than it is OTL! Lordy, imagine the campaign promises to become SCOTUS!

The selection process is already a contemptible toxic stew of partisanship.

In my home state, Wisconsin, the state supreme court justices are elected. It's a flaming mess, that makes a embarassing mockery of the notion of justice.
 
What if instead of putting the nomination to Senate, like in OTL, the President, makes two suggestions and the people vote for who they prefer? So a Public confirmation rather then Senate confirmation
 
Last edited:
You'd probably still have a lot of partisanship. A Republican president would force the people to choose between two Republicans, for instance. The Democrats wouldn't like that.
 

Alcsentre Calanice

Gone Fishin'
Maybe use the Electoral College for it. For each vacant place in the SCOTUS, the president, the Senate and the House of Representatives elect each one candidate and the E College chooses the actual judge out of them.
 

jahenders

Banned
On the face of it, it sounds like a good idea, but I think there's merit to the Senate doing it, though the way they do it is pretty screwed up and very partisan. Making it public wouldn't help that, it would just mean that the people selecting are almost certainly LESS informed and get their main information from paid advertising.

That being said, the idea of sending multiple names might make sense.

Whatever the process of getting there, the Senate should have 30 days to vote yea or nay on them. Basically, if they can't get 60 yeas, they're rejected (which is essentially the case now).

What if instead of putting the nomination to Senate, like in OTL, the President, makes two suggestions and the people vote for who they prefer? So a Public confirmation rather then Senate confirmation
 

jahenders

Banned
In general, the idea of electing judges (at least at the federal bench level) is insane. How long would it be before we:
1) Get Judge Judy as SCOTUS
2) Have judicial candidates interviewing on Letterman about what kind of underwear they wear
3) Have to hear a bunch of commercials from several different lawyers wanting to be SCOTUS

In general it would make the whole process MORE politicized
 
Divide the country into nine regions, and have one justice for each region. They would serve for two nine year terms. Each region will have an election in a different year.
The partisanship would tend to balance out. The president could still appoint the chief justice.
 
How would American politics have transpired if all members of the Supreme Court were elected by the people (like the members of the executive and legislative branches)?

The Supreme Court members could still have life membership.


From what date?

Senators weren't directly elected until 1913, so it's hardly likely that SC Justices would be made elective earlier than that.
 
What if instead of putting the nomination to Senate, like in OTL, the President, makes two suggestions and the people vote for who they prefer? So a Public confirmation rather then Senate confirmation

Wouldn't the president just nominate [desired candidate] and Charles Manson in that case?
 
How would American politics have transpired if all members of the Supreme Court were elected by the people (like the members of the executive and legislative branches)?

The Supreme Court members could still have life membership.

The problem is that there is no way this could have been provided for in the original Constitution--and if public dissatisfaction with SCOTUS were great enough during the Jacksonian era (when election became increasingly prevalent for state judges) or the Progressive Era or the New Deal, etc. there would be *much* easier ways to handle it than the very difficult method of amending the Constitution. Court-packing for one (it could be done by simple legislation without any supermajorities) or even political impeachments (difficult, but easier than amending the Constitution).
 
We elect judges in Pennsylvania and it is the dumbest thing. You know who gets elected? The people who in the lottery for ballot access were listed first. The Supreme Court Composition would be effectively random, so that's chaotic and interesting I guess.
 

jahenders

Banned
There's no accounting for the electorate, of course, but some things confuse me more than others.

With VERY few exceptions (0 so far), every time I get a ballot for re-electing judges, I vote against every one of them because I conclude the system can always get better. I'm amazed, and shocked, that most people vote to re-elect them, effectively saying, "Oh, those judges are all making great decisions." Who really believes that?

We elect judges in Pennsylvania and it is the dumbest thing. You know who gets elected? The people who in the lottery for ballot access were listed first. The Supreme Court Composition would be effectively random, so that's chaotic and interesting I guess.
 
There's no accounting for the electorate, of course, but some things confuse me more than others.

With VERY few exceptions (0 so far), every time I get a ballot for re-electing judges, I vote against every one of them because I conclude the system can always get better. I'm amazed, and shocked, that most people vote to re-elect them, effectively saying, "Oh, those judges are all making great decisions." Who really believes that?

In the primary, I spent an hour researching all of the judges to cross reference who had been recommended by the bar and also had received the most endorsements, picking those that fit both categories. I don't think I should have to vote for judges, so I figure this is the most neutral way of doing things. This of course proved to be a tremendous waste of time as the guy whose name was first on the ballot won despite not being recommended.

I suppose the state Supreme Court is different and may provide an idea of how it would work nationally. The two judges from Pittsburgh and the one judge from Philadelphia won the nomination for the three openings, just completely outnumbering the other candidates. Fortunately 2 of the 3 were Strongly recommended, and the other was just recommended.
 
In the primary, I spent an hour researching all of the judges to cross reference who had been recommended by the bar and also had received the most endorsements, picking those that fit both categories. I don't think I should have to vote for judges, so I figure this is the most neutral way of doing things. This of course proved to be a tremendous waste of time as the guy whose name was first on the ballot won despite not being recommended.

I suppose the state Supreme Court is different and may provide an idea of how it would work nationally. The two judges from Pittsburgh and the one judge from Philadelphia won the nomination for the three openings, just completely outnumbering the other candidates. Fortunately 2 of the 3 were Strongly recommended, and the other was just recommended.


Sounds like that "election" just transfers the appointing power from the Governor to the Bar Association. Brilliant!
 
Top