my proposal for the Supreme Court of Justice, opinions?

Well, I have some ideas (with some undecided) regarding the Supreme Court that I would like to add to several alternative stories that I have developed and those that I have planned.
These are the ideas:
* It should have between 9 and 15 members.
* Your period will have a maximum of 15 to 18 years without the possibility of "re-election".
* To be Chief Justice you must have been a member between two and three years before you took office.
* The President of the Supreme Court will last 3 years without the possibility of renewing the position and will have to wait until two terms later.

Comments? or what do you propose?
 
OK Alt- not sure I would agree with the
idea of restricting the Chief Justiceship to a
current member of the court. Two of the SCOTUS’ greatest Chief Justices- John Mar-
shall & Earl Warren- came from outside the
Court(& the latter had, believe it or not, no
prior judicial experience @ all!)

Who appoints the Court’s members? The
POTUS as we now have it? If someone else,
who?

I have to admit I think 15 members is too
many- maybe I’ve been brainwashed but I
think 9 is just fine, & that if an increase is
in order I’d only have 11 justices.

These are just some thoughts I have off the
top of my head, for what they’re worth (probably not much!) I’d certainly like to hear more from you re this Alt!
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Comments? or what do you propose?

It all depends on what you seek to achieve. Generally, the proposals you suggest will further the cause of progressive and "liberal" (in the modern sense; not meaning classical liberal) politics. Limited terms means fewer 'dinosaurs' staying on for decades, and since (assuming a general social tendency similar to OTL) society becomes less conservative over time, new justices who moe closely reflect and embody 'modern values' will -- on average -- be put on the court earlier.

Whether this is a good thing depends entirely on your political preferences, of course. After all, @UCB79 may call Warren one of the best chief justices, but dogged conservatives would say the same about William Rehnquist. The particular example of Warren (who was put on the court without the experience you require) notwithstanding, the proposals you offer will generally favour the 'Warrens' of this world, and hinder the 'Rehnquists'.
 
Here in France, we have the Conseil Constitutionnel (constitutional council) and I must say I kind of like how it is setup:

- Single term of 9 years. Long enough to have an impact, but no dinosaur effect. Becoming a constitutional councillor is still considered the highest achievement of a judicial career. Usually members retire completely after their term.
- Renewable by a third (3 members) every 3 years. Meaning you don't let chances impact the court composition. Also, you get away with the "Will he/she - Won't he/she resign" discussion that the US is regularly having.
- The president just get 1 of the 3 picks at each renewal. The other 2 are given to the leaders of each of the Chambers. So for the US, 1 pick for the Speaker of the House, 1 for the President pro temp of the Senate (no pick for the Vice-President as this would mean 2 picks for the executive). This would mean that majorities in both chambers will have an impact, and in case of divided government, you'll get judges chosen from different sensibilities. Juges picks still have to be confirmed by their respective judicial comittees and chambers.

The only thing I don't like is that former French presidents have a lifetime seat after their terms in the Council. This should be removed.
 
OK Alt- not sure I would agree with the
idea of restricting the Chief Justiceship to a
current member of the court. Two of the SCOTUS’ greatest Chief Justices- John Mar-
shall & Earl Warren- came from outside the
Court(& the latter had, believe it or not, no
prior judicial experience @ all!)

Who appoints the Court’s members? The
POTUS as we now have it? If someone else,
who?

I have to admit I think 15 members is too
many- maybe I’ve been brainwashed but I
think 9 is just fine, & that if an increase is
in order I’d only have 11 justices.

These are just some thoughts I have off the
top of my head, for what they’re worth (probably not much!) I’d certainly like to hear more from you re this Alt!
I meant that in order to be Chief Justice, you must be 2 or 3 years old as a Member of the Supreme Court. For example, if you were appointed as Chief Justice on January 1, 2015, you must wait until January 2, 2018 to be eligible as Chief Justice.
Not talking about previous experience, that I already have something defined.

Your designation occurs the same as OTL
 
Top