Law Professor Stephen Carter here advocates that U.S. Supreme Court justices be chosen by popular vote. Thanks to How Appealing for the link.
Law Professor Stephen Carter here advocates that U.S. Supreme Court justices be chosen by popular vote. Thanks to How Appealing for the link.
If we elected justices, they could appoint the president. The “administration” would be more like civil service.
There are many potentially favourable aspects of the election of the ten-member Supreme Court of the USA, and the United Coalition USA would support the election of the SCOTUS as an at-large ten-member district.
However in the USA our unity team is a five-member administrative district.
The USA executive is five, the international a ten-member administrative district, both districts subject to a perpetual “vote of confidence” from large 1000-member at-large assemblies, elected at-large under pure proportional representation (PPR).
The United Coalition had been using parliamentary procedures under PPR and it’s been working perfectly for twenty-three consecutive years.
We recently upgraded our team of volunteers with the first unelected volunteer. At an age under 25 and with the youth generation now well represented, maybe this is the future of our teamwork and volunteerism?
We call on all parties and independents to sign up as a free volunteer and to work with our new department not based in the USA.
http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc.html
I really don’t like the idea of letting voters pick Supreme Court Justices. It would be a disaster.
Honestly a lot of our issues could be fixed if the Senate would actually do its job and properly advise the President on Supreme Court picks. Right now, the Senate just provides their consent role.
An idea I have had floating around is that allow the Supreme Court to have any number of justices (the current 9 is simply a rule established by the Senate) and have a random 9 be picked to hear each case. I think this would be a good way to to bring about a more fair judiciary. It would also quell a lot of the current conflict over the nomination of judges.
Has Prof Carter been looking at BAN ??
—
PR and Appv
TOTAL Separation of Powers = TOTSOP
—
EZK — How about elect all USA District Court judges —
have random 3 judge appeal courts and random 9 judge SCOTUS courts ???
History Note –
For some centuries in England for *complex* cases — ALL the judges of the 3 top courts in England ruled in such cases.
Only in circa 2005 that the UK got a regular *Supreme Court* of the United Kingdom —
making the old hacks in the UK House of Lords even more obsolete and useless.
The article forgot the incident in the 1876 election, where the most fair-minded SCOTUS justice who was going to arbitrate the electoral votes, was elected to the US Senate from Illinois, ensuring that Hayes would be elected.
Seems to me I remember that rotten racist segregationist son of a bitch governor of Alabama campaigned in 1968 on a proposal to make all SCOTUS justices get re-confirmed every decade. Hmmm… I guess you can’t get EVERYTHING wrong!
Maybe, it would be better to have a popular vote to confirm judicial appointments, rather than electing them.
I’m sure we’ll still be hearing this sort of rhetoric from such law professors the next time we have a Democrat president and Senate.
WZ – BAN might know if some State Guvs appoint some judges who then get voter approval/ disapproval.
Demo Rep – in California the Justices of the Supreme Court are appointed by the Governor and then confirmed by popular vote. They must then face the voters again 12 years later to again be confirmed, and every 12 years until they retire. I think Superior Court Judges are appointed in a similar manner.
What judges appointed by party HACK Prezs/Guvs are NOT party hacks ???
IE see nonstop ravings about which party HACK Prez appointed SCOTUS HACKS, USA court of appeals HACKS, USA district Court HACKS (esp. via party HACKS in the State involved).
BAN notes such HACK appointments often in Fed election law cases.
Equal HACK justice under the zillion HACK laws or what ???
Oklahoma holds regular retention elections for Supreme Court judges. Oklahoma also elects district judges. Nearly all retentions are upheld in Oklahoma because those line items get very little attention.
@E Zachary Knight: Something tells me that popular confirmation votes for US Supreme Court would get a LOT of attention.
ALL non-election appointing schemes are loved by EVIL ROTTED OLIGARCHS-MONARCHS (EVROMS)–
WHO HAVE TOTAL CONTEMPT FOR REAL DEMOCRACY.
SUCH EVIL ROTTED OLIGARCHS-MONARCHS (EVROMS) also love the current various perversions in election schemes –
MINORITY RULE gerrymanders, unequal ballot access laws, primaries, runoff primaries, caucuses, conventions, plurality nominees, plurality winners = ONE GIANT EVIL MESS FOR CENTURIES.
—
NO primaries, runoff primaries, caucuses, conventions
Equal ballot access laws
PR and AppV – pending Condorcet