Should Supreme Court Justices be elcted instead of appointed?

Question

I think that they should becuase the system is already political. The president appoints someone who has his same views. This would also, not make Supreme Court nominations a campaign issue.

We could have the Senate pick two candidates-majority picks one and minority picks one. Also, the president chooses a candidate. Next the people vote by instant runoff to ensure the most preferred candidate is elected and votes are not wasted.

Justices would then either serve for life or only one term.

Also, they must only campaign on their experience and history and would use public campaign financing. These things would ensure they are not influenced by politics.

What do you think about this plan?

Answer 1

What we really need is a way to get rid of the bad ones once they are in office - a recall provision.

Answer 2

I agree with you that the system is already political, but I don't think that your solution is the right way to improve it. The only way we can improve it is by educating the public so that the public won't be fooled by vapid campaign slogans by the politicians in both parties. The public itself must have objectivity -- rather than ideology -- as the highest priority.

Answer 3

Anytime you add more of the "popularity" issue into the process, you also add more of the "influence peddling" issue.

Our current system isn't perfect by any means but I am not ready to go so far as allowing supreme court nominees to campaign for the job.

Answer 4

It is not good.

No more debates on this.

Let us retain the system, which is good for us.

Answer 5

No, the plan would not work. The entire point in nominating them is to make sure the justices are beholden to no one.

You mention that the President nominates a person with the same views. How did this work out when H.W. Bush nominated Souter?

Answer 6

Bad idea. It would make their decision even more political.

The problem is with the JUDGES , they are supposed to FOLLOW the Constitution but ever since FDR's threats against the court , it has been used as another political body

Answer 7

It would be much fairer than it is now.   Whatever party is in, the court goes that way.

The people could have a voice for a change.

Answer 8

no. lifetime appointment removes the veil of political pressure. and you are right, politicians install justices that are of similar mind but remember that Republican R. Reagan picked most of the people on the court and they haven't followed the party lead, (did you catch McCain calling one of their decisions the worst one in history?) they support the heart and soul of our constitution.

BTW: the president only nominates a candidate, they still have to be approved by congress.

Answer 9

The person appointed by a sitting president, still has to go through the legislative approval process - they aren't just automatically seated.  So that makes your point moot.

I also would rather have in place the process we have - where people who at least have a clue what the required background IS, are appointing and approving the candidate.  To have an uneducated populace to it is truly horrifying.  Look at the popularity contest the presidential election has become.  It obvously has little to do with experience/qualifications.  

When you say they must campaign only on experience and history - how on earth would THAT be enforced?  We can't enforce it for presidential candidates!

Don't mean to sound so negative - you are obviously doing some serious analysis of this and I really do appreciate that.  Well written too.

Answer 10

NO.  

Judges are meant to be NOT subject to the will of the people.  They are meant to INTERPRET the constitution.  Voters are not lawyers, they are not qualified to determine who is and isn't interpreting the laws correctly.

Answer 11

its a good idea but chances are it would not work. the supreme court is there to interpret the Constitution of its purist form. the way the framers intended it to be. not by what the public opinion thinks the jurisdiction or rulling should be on a case. also just because a judge has the same veiws a presidant does doesnt mean that the judge will always make a desion that the presidant likes.