Interesting idea here:
"I propose increasing that number to 59. Nine Justices could be appointed by the president, as they are now. The additional 50 would come from the 50 states. Each state's governor would nominate a member of the Court from his or her state, who would then be confirmed by the Senate as usual. (Although if you really wanted to go for a major change, the confirmation could be by the legislature of that state).
The increase in size would mean that changes due to death and retirement would be routine—no more bringing Washington to a halt every time a Justice retires. It would also remove some of the Court's mystique. People might believe in nine philosopher-kings in a temple of justice, but no one would believe in 59 philosopher-kings. Fifty-nine sounds more like a legislature, and if the Court is going to do legislative-type things, as it clearly does, maybe that's a good idea.
With a Court that big, the odds are that a single vote wouldn't be the deciding one very often, making assassination less attractive to anyone inclined to violence. That could spare the nation a lot of trauma."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/expand-the-supreme-court-by-a-lot-opinion/ar-AAZaYuH?cvid=d4f403a6470545739c3fa6a1fe3d127e
Hey, even you States' righters get a bone!
@shavixmir saidSo who would appoint?
Good grief no.
Maximum sitting period: 10 years.
9 justices are enough.
They shouldn’t be political appointments.
And they should judge whether proper procedures have been adhered to. Not dictating policy.
@no1marauder saidwah wah wah…look at the little liberal crying.
Interesting idea here:
"I propose increasing that number to 59. Nine Justices could be appointed by the president, as they are now. The additional 50 would come from the 50 states. Each state's governor would nominate a member of the Court from his or her state, who would then be confirmed by the Senate as usual. (Although if you really wanted to go for a major change, ...[text shortened]... inion/ar-AAZaYuH?cvid=d4f403a6470545739c3fa6a1fe3d127e
Hey, even you States' righters get a bone!
@ponderable saidFor example.
So who would appoint?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom#Judges
Appointment process
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 makes provision for a new appointment process for Justices of the Supreme Court. An independent selection commission is to be formed when vacancies arise. This is to be composed of the President of the Supreme Court (the chair), another senior UK judge (not a Supreme Court Justice), and a member of the Judicial Appointments Commission of England and Wales, the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland and the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission. By law, at least one of these cannot be a lawyer. However, there is a similar but separate commission to appoint the next President of the Supreme Court, which is chaired by one of the non-lawyer members and features another Supreme Court Justice in the place of the President. Both of these commissions are convened by the Lord Chancellor.[45] In October 2007, the Ministry of Justice announced that the appointment process would be adopted on a voluntary basis for appointments of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary.[46]
The commission selects one person for the vacancy and notifies the Lord Chancellor of its choice. The Lord Chancellor then either
approves the commission's selection
rejects the commission's selection, or
asks the commission to reconsider its selection.
If the Lord Chancellor approves the person selected by the commission, the Prime Minister must then recommend that person to the Monarch for appointment.[47]
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@no1marauder saidSounds to be a very cumbersome process.
Interesting idea here:
"I propose increasing that number to 59. Nine Justices could be appointed by the president, as they are now. The additional 50 would come from the 50 states. Each state's governor would nominate a member of the Court from his or her state, who would then be confirmed by the Senate as usual. (Although if you really wanted to go for a major change, ...[text shortened]... inion/ar-AAZaYuH?cvid=d4f403a6470545739c3fa6a1fe3d127e
Hey, even you States' righters get a bone!
There were originally 6 judges--one for each
judicial district-- expanded to 9 as new districts emerged.
Currently there are 13 judicial districts but still only
9 justices. I propose that SCOTUS be expanded to 13 judges.
Lifetime appoints assume to keep judges above the political fray but, perhaps,
some sort of review or vote of confidence isn't a bad idea.
@shavixmir saidSystem of Mob is what you and Marauder would be thinking of. Everyone should vote! Losers, illegals, felons, all of them. All will elect our judges.
I can think of several systems.
OK. Seem silly? Then pray tell, how would you fellows decide who is qualified, or will any mob be just fine. Should they at least be taxpayers? Will there be, horrors, discrimination when decide which of us will pick the judges?
Ahhhh, the era of the mob.
@no1marauder saidIsn’t that sort of like the two houses now.
Interesting idea here:
"I propose increasing that number to 59. Nine Justices could be appointed by the president, as they are now. The additional 50 would come from the 50 states. Each state's governor would nominate a member of the Court from his or her state, who would then be confirmed by the Senate as usual. (Although if you really wanted to go for a major change, ...[text shortened]... inion/ar-AAZaYuH?cvid=d4f403a6470545739c3fa6a1fe3d127e
Hey, even you States' righters get a bone!
@averagejoe1 saidEveryone should vote in a democratic republic.
System of Mob is what you and Marauder would be thinking of. Everyone should vote! Losers, illegals, felons, all of them. All will elect our judges.
OK. Seem silly? Then pray tell, how would you fellows decide who is qualified, or will any mob be just fine. Should they at least be taxpayers? Will there be, horrors, discrimination when decide which of us will pick the judges?
Ahhhh, the era of the mob.
There was nothing in that proposal about electing judges.
@no1marauder said
Everyone should vote in a democratic republic.
There was nothing in that proposal about electing judges.
..if the Court is going to do legislative-type things, as it clearly does, maybe that's a good idea.
Or the court could avoid doing legislative-type things.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidEvery citizen of a democratic republic, which we are, should vote . We all agree.
Everyone should vote in a democratic republic.
There was nothing in that proposal about electing judges.
Now, tough question: Should anyone else be allowed to vote?
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@averagejoe1 saidThat's not a tough question, it's a stupid one - given that right now, the only one who 'votes' for SCOTUS is the lame duck nearly-ex-POTUS.
Every citizen of a democratic republic, which we are, should vote . We all agree.
Now, tough question: Should anyone else be allowed to vote?