Should the Supreme Court be reformed?

wiscoaster

wiscoaster

Well-known member
As a conservative, yes, I think that's feasible and acceptable. But cerainly not just by adding more justices to the current Court. In the first place, I don't think any branch of a government of, by and for the people should feature life terms. But, here are my ideas, again as a conservative, for Supreme Court reform:

1) A court comprised of 12 justices.
2) Each justice serves a single term of 12 years.
3) A new justice is appointed each year by the current President (w/ advice & consent of the Senate).
4) The senior justice serves as Chief Justice for one year before retiring.
5) The new junior justice participates in conference but doesn't vote and doesn't write opinion for first year.

Thoughts?

(Note: if such a reform would be implemented it would be effective with the beginning of the NEXT presidential term after the amendment is approved by the states)
 
Last edited:
CrustyCoot

CrustyCoot

Active member
wiscoaster said:
As a conservative, yes, I think that's feasible and acceptable. But cerainly not just by adding more justices to the current Court. In the first place, I don't think any branch of a government of, by and for the people should feature life terms. But, here are my ideas, again as a conservative, for Supreme Court reform:

1) A court comprised of 12 justices.
2) Each justice serves a single term of 12 years.
3) A new justice is appointed each year by the current President (w/ advice & consent of the Senate).
4) The senior justice serves as Chief Justice for one year before retiring.
5) The new junior justice participates in conference but doesn't vote and doesn't write opinion for first year.

Thoughts?

(Note: if such a reform would be implemented it would be effective with the beginning of the NEXT presidential term after the amendment is approved by the states)
Click to expand...
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
 
CrustyCoot

CrustyCoot

Active member
wiscoaster said:
In the sense that the Court wimped out on addressing voting frawed then it's broken.

They're going to try to pack it. I think conservatives should have an alternate plan.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Court did wimp out. You don't want to hear my alternate plan if the incoming, illegally elected administration tries to pack the Court.
 
CrustyCoot

CrustyCoot

Active member
I won't post it, but that is part of the problem in this country. We can'y speak our mind without fear of reprisals. And we have become so complacent with this that we as a whole are unwilling to stand up for ourselves.
 
W

WrongHanded

Well-known member
The easiest way to attain a balanced and apolitical court is to not let politicians make the decision. I think the lower courts should be making the appointment, because if anyone knows what it takes to be a good Judge, it's other judges.
 
CrustyCoot

CrustyCoot

Active member
WrongHanded said:
The easiest way to attain a balanced and apolitical court is to not let politicians make the decision. I think the lower courts should be making the appointment, because if anyone knows what it takes to be a good Judge, it's other judges.
Click to expand...
But the lower court judges arepolitical appointees, no thanks
 
wiscoaster

wiscoaster

Well-known member
WrongHanded said:
The easiest way to attain a balanced and apolitical court is to not let politicians make the decision. I think the lower courts should be making the appointment, because if anyone knows what it takes to be a good Judge, it's other judges.
Click to expand...

I think that's an excellent idea. Or perhaps somewhere in the middle where the lower courts provide a list of acceptable candidates from which the executive can choose one.

The worst possible way to choose judges is to have them run for office, like we do here in Wisconsin.
 
W

WrongHanded

Well-known member
wiscoaster said:
I think that's an excellent idea. Or perhaps somewhere in the middle where the lower courts provide a list of acceptable candidates from which the executive can choose one.

The worst possible way to choose judges is to have them run for office, like we do here in Wisconsin.
Click to expand...
The more steps between politicians and judge selection the better. The more educated on the law those doing the selecting, the better.

I'd certainly prefer it this way in the event something catastrophic happened to the supreme court, such as a fatal terrorist attack. Then we could up with all the new justices being selected by one president and confirmed by one party. A very bad idea.
 
theotherwaldo

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
I happen to believe that anyone that has ever been a practicing lawyer should be forever banned from being a judge - or, for that matter, a politician.

When I was a child I thought that the word 'lawyer' was a corruption of the word 'liar'.
I have never seen anything to change that opinion.
People that lie for a living make poor judges - or leaders... .
 
NIGHTLORD40K

NIGHTLORD40K

Active member
CrustyCoot said:
I won't post it, but that is part of the problem in this country. We can'y speak our mind without fear of reprisals. And we have become so complacent with this that we as a whole are unwilling to stand up for ourselves.
Click to expand...
ATTENTION CITIZEN "CRUSTY COOT"-

YOU HAVE BEEN ACCUSED, TRIED, AND CONVICTED OF THOUGHT CRIMES. PLEASE REPORT TO THE NEAREST REEDUCATION CENTER FOR ADJUSTMENT. THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE YOU WILL RECEIVE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. WE APOLOGIZE FOR THE INCONVENIENCE.

-Sincerely, The Ministry of Truth and Social Justice
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top