DBWI: Supreme Court Justices not elected?

Under the terms of the 22nd amendment, supreme court justices are now elected for 10 year terms. What if it was never passed, and we kept the "life time appointment?" How would that change the History of American Politics?
 
Well, if nothing else I imagine we would have avoided the massive controversy of the Supreme Court election of 1970, which finally got a majority of desegragation justices on the court...
 

wormyguy

Banned
We also wouldn't keep getting Roe v. Wade overturned every two years now.

:rolleyes:

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.
 
We also wouldn't keep getting Roe v. Wade overturned every two years now.

:rolleyes:

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: The OP clearly says "ten year terms" not two. Please fix it.
 
I suppose you'd see the biases of administrations twenty years before dictating the constitutional interpretations 20 years later. Ten years may not be much to amend that system since I'd say 20 years is a good benchmark of how long the justices did serve before all this and likely would serve around abouts before retiring, but I think it's a sight better.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
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.
 
Last edited:
But the President could just name whomever he wanted for the Court. I mean it really wasn't that neutral anyways.

Yeah, but the Senate had to approve the nominee in comittee and full body, and often as not a president would get a rude awakening in terms of their justices' positions. And congress had already effectivly made the court independent of even the president (i.e. partisan politics).

The thing is, now any act of neutrality on the court is just that; and act. Every justice makes their decisions based on political expediency and with an eye to reelection, as opposed to actual constitutionality. And most of the people on the bench these days arent even properly qualified to hold the spot. The court today is inconsistent and ideological, and in being so has strayed from its proper role. The supreme court is supposed to be above partisan politics, at least insofar as the actual justices are concerned (they will still have to handle political disputes at times).

Democratizing the supreme court sounded like a good idea on paper, and if executed properly might have worked. Maybe if the justices were elected by plebiscite and forced to renounce parties, we would still have a reasonably functional court. But instead, we have our modern farce. The problem with the modern supreme court is that if a justice must always look to reelection, then they will vote with their political future in mind.
 
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.
Yes, but how could we be sure they'd be responsible to the people if they weren't elected?
 

Hendryk

Banned
Yes, but how could we be sure they'd be responsible to the people if they weren't elected?
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.

I actually did some research on this back in law school. Your concern was raised at the time -- the Republicans referred to the plans as "FDR's Courtpacking Amendment." But the fact is that the Supreme Court of FDR's time was political, adhering to an outlandishly narrow view of the powers of the Federal government. Yes, the 23rd amendment expanding the "Commerce Clause" solved some of the problem, but the real problem was that the 1930s Court was acting, as you complain, as a veto on Congress and the President. It was necessary progress, like the direct election of senators and the National Recovery Administration.
 
Top