OOC: The OP clearly says "ten year terms" not two. Please fix it.We also wouldn't keep getting Roe v. Wade overturned every two years now.
A woman walks into a doctors office and asks if she can get an abortion.
The doctor says it's illegal, so she should wait 5 minutes and come back again.
OOC: There's no reason it couldn't be staggered elections like the Senate.OOC: The OP clearly says "ten year terms" not two. Please fix it.
OOC: I'd agree that staggered terms are likely; electing the entire court en masse would be much more disruptive/problematic.OOC: There's no reason it couldn't be staggered elections like the Senate.
OOC: The OP clearly says "ten year terms" not two. Please fix it.
Politicizing the court was a horrible idea, to be honest. I thought the purpose of the USSC was supposed to be as a way of interpreting constitutionality, not to give the parties a new arena to contest. The old concept of neutral, qualified justices and judicial precedent has given way to a politicized court, incompetent justices, and flip-flops every election or two. The court isnt so much a court as another veto on congress and the president.
An appointed Court wouldn't be apolitical, but it would be a lot less political than the current electoral system. We would also have people who are more objectively qualified to hold their positions, since one's legal credentials would be more important than how good the justice's look on TV. Consider Justice Williams, who had no judicial experience before he got elected in 1996.But the President could just name whomever he wanted for the Court. I mean it really wasn't that neutral anyways.
But the President could just name whomever he wanted for the Court. I mean it really wasn't that neutral anyways.
Yes, but how could we be sure they'd be responsible to the people if they weren't elected?An appointed Court wouldn't be apolitical, but it would be a lot less political than the current electoral system. We would also have people who are more objectively qualified to hold their positions, since one's legal credentials would be more important than how good the justice's look on TV. Consider Justice Williams, who had no judicial experience before he got elected in 1996.
Appointments might also give us a Court whose membership better reflects the nation's demographics; the first female justice was only elected five years ago, and we still haven't gotten any minorities of the Court.
Their responsibility isn't to the people, but to the spirit of the Constitution. As it is, they're basically super-senators, and the SC as a whole has become something of a third legislative chamber. For all the risks of favoritism and pandering, I'd rather they were still nominated.Yes, but how could we be sure they'd be responsible to the people if they weren't elected?
This. Right now the Justices decide cases more on the basis of what's likely to get them re-elected than on the law and the Constitution.Their responsibility isn't to the people, but to the spirit of the Constitution. As it is, they're basically super-senators, and the SC as a whole has become something of a third legislative chamber. For all the risks of favoritism and pandering, I'd rather they were still nominated.
Politicizing the court was a horrible idea, to be honest. I thought the purpose of the USSC was supposed to be as a way of interpreting constitutionality, not to give the parties a new arena to contest. The old concept of neutral, qualified justices and judicial precedent has given way to a politicized court, incompetent justices, and flip-flops every election or two. The court isnt so much a court as another veto on congress and the president.