Should SCOTUS be elected?

Originally posted by vivify
This video makes it clear why electing judges (let alone Justices) is a bad idea:

[youtube Electing Judges]poL7l-Uk3I8[/youtube]

I don't watch YouTubes.

Appointing judges to the Federal judiciary seems more and more like a bad idea. Partisanship now causes increasing levels of extended vacancies with the latest absurdity regarding Merrick Garland being the nadir. At least if the positions were elected, we'd be sure to have a full SCOTUS and the record level of vacancies would end. This article from last September explains what is presently going on:

Beyond creating new judgeships, the Senate is barely keeping up with filling the 67 existing vacancies. Since Republicans took control of the Senate in January, they’ve only let six of President Barack Obama’s judicial picks get confirmation votes. By contrast, when President George W. Bush was in his seventh year in office and Democrats controlled the Senate, they had confirmed 29 by this point.

Republicans came up with all kinds of ways to block Obama’s judicial nominees when they were in the minority, too. Many simply refused to recommend nominees to the White House for vacancies in their home states — preventing the nomination process from even beginning. They filibustered noncontroversial nominees, used procedural tactics to delay votes and even blocked their own nominees to prevent Obama from chalking up confirmations.

The Constitution requires the president to fill court vacancies and the Senate to vote on a president’s picks. But the GOP calculation is that Obama will be gone after 2016, at which point a Republican could end up in the White House. If GOP senators can hold out until then, they can give Republican-picked judges lifetime jobs on the federal bench.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/judge-federal-courts-vacancies_us_55d77721e4b0a40aa3aaf14b

Given the political reality of hyper-partisanship, an elected judiciary makes sense.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It's your proposal; what term of office do you suggest?

No more than 4 years.

Looking at the election terms of Congress, it is apparent that the Founders favored more frequent election cycles with the direct vote. In fact, they should make the Senate run as frequently as those in the House.

Originally posted by whodey
For today's voter, there is no such aversion.

All concerns the Founding Fathers had for direct democracy seem to have been tuned out.

That tune-up certainly worked for Marion Barry after he got out of prison and got elected.

Originally posted by whodey
No more than 4 years.

Looking at the election terms of Congress, it is apparent that the Founders favored more frequent election cycles with the direct vote. In fact, they should make the Senate run as frequently as those in the House.

Most State legislatures at the time were elected annually, so they actually wanted longer than normal terms for Federal elected representatives. Perhaps that had something to do with travel times.

All seats at the same time or staggered terms for the SCOTUS? Direct election with the most votes winning or some type of "electoral college" arrangement?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Most State legislatures at the time were elected annually, so they actually wanted longer than normal terms for Federal elected representatives. Perhaps that had something to do with travel times.

All seats at the same time or staggered terms for the SCOTUS? Direct election with the most votes winning or some type of "electoral college" arrangement?

How about each state they win they get 1 vote.

That way both the popular vote and power of the individual states are both considered.

Originally posted by whodey
How about each state they win they get 1 vote.

That way both the popular vote and power of the individual states are both considered.

Why should someone from e.g. Wyoming have far more influence in who gets appointed to SCOTUS than someone from e.g. California?

Originally posted by vivify
This video makes it clear why electing judges (let alone Justices) is a bad idea:

[youtube Electing Judges]poL7l-Uk3I8[/youtube]

Giving them life tenure once elected would take care of many of those issues.

Originally posted by whodey
How about each state they win they get 1 vote.

That way both the popular vote and power of the individual states are both considered.

There's 13 Appellate Courts which divide the nation by regions (except for one which covers special fields of law). http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure

You could elect one SCOTUS justice from each region by popular vote. And a "floater" if you wanted to keep the number odd to avoid ties. Maybe a six year term which separate "classes" similar to the US Senate.

Originally posted by sh76
Giving them life tenure once elected would take care of many of those issues.

I'm not convinced lifetime tenure is a necessary or desirable feature.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm not convinced lifetime tenure is a necessary or desirable feature.

It was part of the founder's plan. There are downsides to just about every proposition in this thread, and I don't see that any of them solve the alleged problems.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm not convinced lifetime tenure is a necessary or desirable feature.

Life tenure was supposed to insulate them from political pressure. It doesn't seem to have worked.

Originally posted by normbenign
Life tenure was supposed to insulate them from political pressure. It doesn't seem to have worked.

Essentially the President picks partisan stooges who are preselected to vote a certain way.

The system is broken.

It seems that the arguments against electing Supreme Court judges are really arguments against the inadequacies our broken electoral system, and not really arguments against the feasibility of having elected judges.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't watch YouTubes.

Appointing judges to the Federal judiciary seems more and more like a bad idea. Partisanship now causes increasing levels of extended vacancies with the latest absurdity regarding Merrick Garland being the nadir. At least if the positions were elected, we'd be sure to have a full SCOTUS and the record level of vacancies would e ...[text shortened]... a3aaf14b

Given the political reality of hyper-partisanship, an elected judiciary makes sense.

"Given the political reality of hyper-partisanship, an elected judiciary makes sense."

Electing judges based on the fact that one party has a win-at-all-costs/my-way-or-the-highway mentality doesn't make elected judiciary a good option; it just means Republican hyper-partisanship made a better system stop working. However, since this won't change any time soon (it'll probably get worse) maybe it does make sense.

Originally posted by vivify
The reason Supreme Court judges aren't electable in the first place is to prevent corruption, and remove politics from their decisions. So in answer to your question, no.

How about removing the fear of assasination from their decisions? The Nobel peace prize winner is a killer. Probably as bad as the Clintons.