time for judicial election?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...lds/100261364/

this opinion writer is of the opinion that its time to elect judges in a merit selection variant.

his proposal: president nominates 3 judicial candidates for each judicial district (federal Court of Appeals). people vote for one of those candidates for a 9 year term.

oh btw, Judge Posner should be impeached!!!

this one, 18 years for supreme court justices.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...umn/82133874/#

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...lds/100261364/

this opinion writer is of the opinion that its time to elect judges in a merit selection variant.
Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

I guess one will have to read the "fine print" to figure out what is "a merit selection variant"! It appears to this "opinion writer" that the voters don't select the person "most qualified" to be POTUS so why would they select one for SCOTUS?

I guess one will have to read the "fine print" to figure out what is "a merit selection variant"! It appears to this "opinion writer" that the voters don't select the person "most qualified" to be POTUS so why would they select one for SCOTUS? Originally Posted by LexusLover

As long as every state had an equal voice in the voting process, similar to the electoral college, it might work out OK.

The State of California is no better than Wyoming or Utah, and should not get any greater say.

Why stop there? Redistrict the system. The 10th Appeals is the most overturned in the country (they are California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington). Redivide into 15 districts. Break up California, the crazies stay on the coast and the interior people get a new deal of the cards. I don't like the idea of elections because the founders didn't want some politician beholden to the voters deciding complex cases. Maybe a single long term with no chance for reselection. Jefferson always figures that 20 years was a good standard or the length of a generation. Tom said many times that a man should not be forced to live under the laws his father passed. In Kansas and Missouri we have something like a confidence vote. About every three years a judge has to recieve a majority of the vote to stay in office. Lets say that they have to do this twice and then they can enjoy their remaining 11 years stress free. They get into office the same old way of being nominated and confirmed.

I think the supreme court need to be increased to 13 judges representing 13 judicial districts. there also needs 2 back up judges to fill for in case of illness or recusal or death.

why?
1. you have a more diverse cross section of the country. 9 judges is kind of limiting.
2. it is symbolic. U.S. started out with 13 states.

I also think there has to be a way to overturn some bad supreme court decisions. override by a majority of the state supreme court would be one way to do it.

Why stop there? Redistrict the system. The 10th Appeals is the most overturned in the country (they are California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington). Redivide into 15 districts. . Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

you mean like sub-districts? don't we have those already at the inferior court level?

As long as every state had an equal voice in the voting process, similar to the electoral college, it might work out OK.

The State of California is no better than Wyoming or Utah, and should not get any greater say. Originally Posted by DSK

OK, idiot. Explain again how the Electoral College gives every state an "equal voice" in the voting process?

Explain how judicial elections can be nonpartisan, or prevent the interference of corporations and other special interests from buying seats on the courts? You live in Texas, right? Do you even pay attention, moron?

Explain where you come up with your contradictory bullshit day in and day out. At least a couple of years ago, you'd post it under several different handles. You were much more, ahem, sophisticated in your maskirova back then.

Fucking dipshit.

Hey assup, explain again how US Senate seats can be gerrymandered!

For a change, you've got nothing, Junior.

If you think this bullshit starts and ends with the Senate, you're as stupid as you are repulsive.

YR, still angry as usual.

For a change, you've got nothing, Junior.

If you think this bullshit starts and ends with the Senate, you're as stupid as you are repulsive. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Oh my! I obviously need oinkboy to edumacate me on this "bullshit"!

Last time I checked the "advice and consent" authority for SCOTUS nominees was vested exclusively with the US Senate.

Has the Constitution been amended? Or did someone gerrymander it lol?

OK, idiot. Explain again how the Electoral College gives every state an "equal voice" in the voting process?

Explain how judicial elections can be nonpartisan, or prevent the interference of corporations and other special interests from buying seats on the courts? You live in Texas, right? Do you even pay attention, moron?

Explain where you come up with your contradictory bullshit day in and day out. At least a couple of years ago, you'd post it under several different handles. You were much more, ahem, sophisticated in your maskirova back then.

Fucking dipshit. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Khazer

OK, idiot. Explain again how the Electoral College gives every state an "equal voice" in the voting process? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

its called plurality! that is better than outright majority heavily weighted in one region.

.