Posted on Dec 3, 2016
Should Supreme Court members be elected by the people instead of appointed by the President [with Senate approval]?
9.65K
15
16
2
2
0
Supreme Court
Office of the President (POTUS)
Congress
Elections
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 10
4
4
0
Let's see how this plays out. It'd be like getting rid of the Electoral College with California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, and Pennsylvania essentially deciding over the rest of the country what happens. I'd expect a fully liberal court that legislates from the bench which many liberal judges reject the notion of separation of powers as archane. I'm not advocating full conservative but rather a balance with the the odd vote middle to conservative leaning. Bad things can happen if you're too casual with the Constitution and I'd look at a 5-4 alignment of getting most things in the reasonable range better than otherwise. People tend to get hyped on this kind of split but fail to see the many 6-7 plus results. No place to be running a beauty contest.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
No, the judicial branch is to interpret the law according to the law and the specific case they are not to use public opinion to decide the outcome of a case. Nor should elections have an input as the the quality of a judge. This is a dangerous concept that was nearly universally accepted for hundreds of years. If you want to see what happens with partisan judges look up the history of english judges around 1776.
(4)
(0)
MSG Jay Jackson
I disagree guys. These guys and gals are political to, they are just better at staying quiet about it. I say let the usual process play out with how you get on the court but every two years the senior three are up for a vote of confidence. They cannot campaign or raise money. You look at the record of decisions they have made on issues before the court and cast your vote. You get sixty percent of votes cast you can stay for six years. Or you retire at the end of December. You replacement. I then chosen by the old procedure. I think this would keep the court accountable to we the people. Also it keep some cool f the SCOUTS members from waiting out presidents.
(0)
(0)
MSG Jay Jackson
Also having a lifetime appointment may make some one feel that they may do what ever the hell the want with no one to hold them accountable. We the people should have the last say.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I think a one time appointed terms of 12 years would better serve both (12 and you are done no less no more unless impeached. Judges should not take public opinion into their decision making processes. They need to be free to decide based on how they see the interpretation of the law and how it should apply to the specific case. They should not be held to any sort of penalty because they make a decision that is socially un-preferable. Could you image what decisions judges in the 1800-1970's in the south would have done in regards to racism and civil rights if they could be removed from office for taking a stance against the very popular Jim Crow laws. Public opinion is too easily stirred by special interest groups with money, very rarely do individuals look at the facts from both points of view before forming a decision.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Election vs appointment leads to different decision making. If we move to election the Supreme Court decisions will be more political. So my answer is NO, they should remain appointed. Supreme Court decisions need to be made with a long term view vs the short term view of someone being political and trying to win the next election.
(3)
(0)
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter
True, someone trying to get elected seems a poor way to choose Judges anyway. Then it become a popularity contest and worrying more about getting reelected than performing the legal tasks at hand. That type of pressure cannot and should not ever be imposed on the Supreme Court.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google