Trump’s judicial nominees have been so extreme that what was once considered beyond the pale is now acceptable.
I am not advocating for it, but, what’s to stop the Democrats, if they regain both houses of Congress and the Presidency, if they change the rules as the Republicans have, and make all judicial appointments existing and in the future, with 4 or 6 year term limits?
Lifetime terms for any public office is not smart, at all.
I’m not sure what the answer is. I’m sure you know the reason for lifetime appointments, to remove politics from the judicial system. But of course the Repug’s have tainted that. Different ideas anyone?
The original idea is judges are supposed to be non-partisan civil servants - appointed on the basis of their technical competence - in the same manner as engineers or scientists working for the government - not their ideology. Just as there is no “term” for government employees, there shouldn’t be for judges - whose competence should only increase with experience and age
Unfortunately, in a majority of US states, like my “Commonwealth” judges are already selected in elections - something that never made sense to me.
I’ve got an idea but many here probably won’t like it.
First: Set up voting roles to enroll every single person as soon as they turn 18 years of age.
Second: Abolish the “Supreme” court. It’s far from supreme due to it’s ability to be prejudiced, as all can see right now.
Third: If We the People are to truly have a nation, of, by, and for the People, when a judgement needs to be made that would normally have gone to the “All Knowing Nine,” set up a system that automatically picks maybe 1000 random voters names from the whole voter pool, mail them ballots for the latest decision that needs to be made, give them access to all records pertaining to the judgement that needs to be made, and collect all responses and report the results made and the “People’s Decision.”
Sounds a lot fairer than 9 old fogies open to manipulation.
Judges to protect the oligarchy.
I understand that judges are supposed to be non-partisan civil servants, but in the real world, that kind of pure objectivity does not exist. Never has. No human being can completely divorce themselves their feelings, prejudices and biases. Those nine Supremes are as human as the rest of us and now all the more so with our currently partisan, corrupt political system. It’s as unrealistic to expect them to be pure in their actions as it is to expect legislators to work to be pure in their actions and work on behalf of the people and, ironically, court decisions have only helped to make that more unlikely. At the very least, there needs to be some flexibility in the number of judges appointed to the Supreme Court so that it better reflects the will of the people. Waiting for a Supreme to die or retire before appointing another judge via the present system is a roll of the dice as to what point of view dominates it.
Personally, I would prefer that on serious issues, courts would defer decisions to a referendum vote on a national level. It wouldn’t be perfect, either, but at least it would be far more likely to reflect the will of the people. This would be an ideal fit for a Direct Democracy setup. Not going to happen, though. The federal judiciary is just as entrenched in their power and insulated from accountability as other branches of the federal government, if not more so. Bottom line is that it is the very antithesis of democracy to allow such a small handful of judges to influence our political system, just as it is to allow a such a small handful of the ultra-rich to do control our political system (and we have the Court to thank for that).
Other than broadening the pool (wouldn’t want too many from same area, like where I live), I like you’re idea.
Good read. Thanks for the link.
Let’s please not besmirch a good word like “conservative” in such writings. I want to conserve what is good in the world. My walks through the woods [often with Emerson looping through my mind] help me figure out what I should conserve. The term that fits the offending behavior is “regressive”. We need to use it, and use it often.
The democrats are there to stop the democrats. Haven’t you been paying attention?
I don’t think the union is going to stay united much longer. I would be surprised if the US is still intact by 2030.
You mean the “Establishment” Democrats are the problem. Right Dan?
This is exactly what I have advocated for, a mass exodus from that equally corrupt party of the Duopoly. Neither party can ever be trusted again.
All we need now is for the masses to open their “clucking” eyes, as the Chicken would say, and seek a party that denounces corruption and advocates equality and Peace.