In short, one of the members of the US Supreme Court has retired. And this got me to thinking... is the US Supreme Court actually a judicial body that deserves the power it wields?
Now, I'm well aware that all people will have their beliefs/ideals/morals, and no matter who is appointed to the Supreme Court will take these with them. But given the importance of the Court and the power it has, is it really a sensible move to have the President appoint its members? Especcially in the manner which it is done today, with no set terms for said members, meaning one President can influence the Court for decades?
I admit I don't know enough about the Supreme Court to have any solid opinion one way or the other, but it seems to me that the whole process of appointing members needs to be rethought... just because George Bush has a certain school of thought (and appoints a Justice on that basis) does not mean that the majority of Americans do... or will in ten year's time.
Perhaps I should add: that George Bush will be appointing at least one Supreme Court Justices does concern me, but that's not the issue I'm getting at... whether the sitting President is far right, far left, or anywhere else, the power to appoint a Justice who will influence the nation for decades is somewhat frightening...
It seems to me the Supreme Court should be removed from politics.
Well, the original idea of Presidental appointments was to keep the court de-politicized. I.E. The jutsices would not have to run for election and thus be political candidates.
As a check on Presidental power, his nominee to the court must be approved by the US Senate, which theoretically neads 61 votes to appoint a nominee (in the case of a fillibuster by a large minority bloc).
Thus, a nominee is supposed to be supported by the President and at least 51 (but more than likely 61) US senators who speak for the people of the country.
Of course, the court is a political entity. The "Warren Court" of the 60's and 70's was a highly liberal court that made many progressive landmark decisions, such as the famous Roe V Wade. Of course, some of that legacy was rolled back by the current Rhenquist court. Speaking of which, this court was a very neutral court, with a mixture of liberals and conservatives, and a critical swing voter. Of course, that swing voter, O'Conner, is the one retiring.
Anyway. My question Demos, is what manner would be a better way to appoint justices? Just interested.
That's just it. I have no idea... hence the reason I'm not taking a definate "this doesn't work" stance on the matter.
The Court electing its own members comes to mind, but that of course comes with its own set of pros and cons.
Another off the top of my head would be a representational Court whose members are appointed by the parties, on the basis of votes.
But I haven't really thought of any solutions, these two just spring to mind.
--
For my sake: The Senate is 100 members, then? So perhaps a better alternative would be the Senate confirmation must be a two-thirds majority? That seems like it would make the appointments more neutral (by and large).
Quite possibly you're right. That, however, changes nothing, because irregardless of who the president is the power to appoint a Supreme Court Justice is a great one, and perhaps not one that should be left to the President.
Which is exactly what I said.
But hey! None of that matters when you can make yourself feel like less of a loser by calling someone a liberal. Let's all try it!
the first three quotes in your first post all express some kind of juvanille anxiety over the rightward motion of the supreme court. i don't make this shit up. whatever ostensible rationalizations you concoct to cover your own ass, everything you've posted clearly signals to everyone that you are questioning this process because of its current effects, not the validity of the process itself.
get a clue man. if john kerry were about to appoint a liberal justice you would not be posting this thread because you would approve of that. denying that just makes you look even dumber. the appointment process in canada has even fewer regulatory procedures, but i dont see you talking shit about it when our supreme court (which is about six times more powerful and influential) starts reading down legislation. why? because canada's judicial system is decidedly liberal.
jesus. bitch about shit when it irks you if you want, but don't start a pissing contest over your motivation when your whole modus operandi is to see the western hemisphere turn into amsterdam.
