What justice facing a re-election battle is ever going to release a criminal who is probably guilty but was only convicted because of (for example) an illegal police search?

we don't need politicians on the supreme court.

I was just thinking that a body like the Supreme Court, which makes direct, life altering decisions
should have some accountability to the people that they govern.

You don't think that we have partisan judges now?

With a couple layers removed from the people's elections, look at how they are. It would be much worse if they were directly elected.

The Federal court system was designed to be an independent part of our three-part system of government. The concept was for this independent branch of government to bridge partisan politics over time with long terms and a two-part appointment process involving the Executive and Legislative branches.

Any dilution of that independence would make the system just one more political body. There's no way to eliminate some politics from being a part of the judicial branch, but the lifetime terms and two-part appointment system works about as well as it can.

No changes will occur, and shouldn't.

Then kick their asses to the curb.

Talk about making a mess of the country...

They should have been impeached and disbanded in 2000.

Leaving 9 vacancies for Chimpy to fill? Reallly?

had not appointed a single one. Really.

Except, change the year to 1973.

Frankly, a Supreme Court that is doing their job is bound to piss people all over the political spectrum off.

myself included.

I said Right wingers say that.

since it means nothing to me. The crap they pulled in 2000 is IMO unforgivable.

You honestly have to ask this question? What do you think 8 years of Shrub apointees would have done to our country?

The last thing we need is an avenue for special interests to so directly influence SCOTUS.

A one-term limit of 20 years or so, maybe. But direct election? No.

have the same ethics rules as every other federal judge,
Lunch with Chennnney and you are recused from his case.

re: Term Limits.
As "The American Experience" is constantly evolving. Why would we want
anyone who's been in the same job for 30 years? It's not like they are appointed Kings...or is it?

especially the legislative branch, there are Senators and Representatives who have made careers of this and that isn't what our founding fathers wanted, they wanted every citizen to have a chance to serve in govt, rich or poor, which certainly isn't the case now.

For the most part the Founding Fathers were a bunch of rich white guys. Who were opposed to paying taxes.

Landed white males who could afford to give up their income to serve.
They looked at is as a DUTY to their country and a hardship.

We don't want our judicial branch of government politicized, it was designed by the founding fathers to be an independent arm of the executive and legislative branches of govt.

have a more conservative court. As for a limited term I think that can be a good debate.

2014 could be a repeat of that.

Take a look at the Judges in places where they elect them.

against the tyranny of the majority. As bad as the court has been in recent years, opening it up to direct election just makes it worse.

Suppose a judge in a conservative state were to rule that Roe v Wade didn't reflect the will of their constituents?
See the problem?

really? so judges should have upheld Jim Crow laws. Yeah, right.

I'm challenging your rhetorical question about judges reflecting the will of the majority- which is exactly what they shouldn't do.

Electing judges at all is a very bad idea indeed. You seem to have trouble accepting that but you don't seem to articulate an argument on why electing Justices would be preferable.

Judges shouldn't judge based on the way the political winds are blowing at any particular moment.

There are examples of justices who made more liberal decisions than expected, because they were analyzing the law.

I like the idea upthread of limiting them in time, to an age, say 75.

-Laelth

should have been driven from office, then your point is made.

Conservatives hated William O. Douglas, who served longer than any other SCOTUS justice. They weren't all that pleased with Justice Stevens, who is another one of the 14 Justices who served more than 30 years. If Stevens had been forced to step down upon completing 30 years of service, his replacement would have been nominated by GWBush rather than Obama.

However, justices should serve for a limited time. 20 years?

Term limits for elected officials is an insidious, self-inflicted surrender of the power of the right to vote.

Repeal the Twenty Second Amendment, which was passed by a Republican congress and ratified quickly by Republican legislatures.

It was a vengeful assault on the memory of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

need a "remove them from office clause" so when they are deciding on cases that even the Public can recognize as a conflict of interest--so.........when they Refuse to Recuse-We are not Powerless
We clearly have a very big problem with several currently serving and We, the People have No control over these "masters".
They're essentially writing law--not good and they seem at times as if they would even over-ride Congress.
It is My understanding that SCOTUS is "supposed" to be the Weakest branch--not the Lords over us all. And right now--the majority, imo--is "Lording" over us all.

The billionaire oligarchs would go all out to elect pro-corporate judges. Very bad idea.

With judicial elections, it becomes nothing more than a popularity contest.

I don't have a problem at the Local or State Level with Judges being elected, we do that in Texas, but not at the Federal Level.

If it were up to me, all Federal Judicial appointments (District Courts, Bankruptcy Courts, Court of Appeals, SCOTUS) would be for a 25 year term. The term would not be renewable for that particular appointment, but the clock would start over if they are promoted to a higher position in the Federal Judicial System. So if a person becomes an Associate Justice of the Court, they get a 25 year term. At the end of that time, they retire with a Federal Pension. But, after a period as an Associate Justice, they get chosen to be Chief Justice, then the clock starts over. However, no person would be permitted to serve more than a total of 40 years, even if they were appointed to several positions.

So, it would go like this:

Jane Doe gets appointed by President Smith to be a District Court Judge. She serves 8 years. Then she gets promoted to a Court of Appeals. She serves 12 years. She then gets promoted to be an Associate Justice of SCOTUS. Even though the term is for 25 years, she can only serve 20 years because she already served 20 years. After 10 years, she get chosen to be Chief Justice. The term for that is 25 years, but she could only serve 10 years as Chief. At the end of her 40 years, she has to retire. She can't serve as a Judge or Justice anywhere in the US at any level. She gets full Federal pension and benefits.

to popular vote what happens to protecting us from the tyranny of the masses?

Thank you.

We would end up with a mish mash of rulings from district to district.

We want judges to be objective and not swayed by political considerations.

Elections, no.

I live in a state that elects all its public officials and it's not a good idea. The general populace knows little about the politicians they elect - they know even less about the judges. Most admit that when it comes time to elect judges (and this is all the way down to the lowest court), they devise some sort of weird rubric: "this time I'll only pick a woman" or "hmm - eight seats open - each has five candidates . . . I know, I'll subtract five from eight and pick the third candidate for each seat".

That allows them plenty of time to make a judicial mark, and allows each new Congress to approve one Justice.
In the case of death or retirement, an interim justice would be appointed. If they serve less than half a term,
they would be eligible for another one, similar to the 22nd Amendment.

Yes, SCOTUS isn't leaning as I might like right now, but no, definitely no elections.

SC Justices always needing to serve their donors and needing to satisfy popular extremism is not something I want to see.

You'd have Wisconsin ... with one judge trying to strangle another just to please a putsch.

I don't think it has improved things. It just means that the politicians get into office, spend a couple of years at least learning the ropes. (During that time, the senior politicians pretty much run the show and do what they want. The fledglings just go along.) Just as they are beginning to get their feet wet, they have to start looking for a new job. That usually takes a big portion of their attention just when they could be most effective.

Plus, on the negative side, you get politicians playing political musical chairs.

On the other hand, you get more new ideas in your government if you have term limits.

That we now have a Democratic governor and majority in the legislature is great for California. Jerry Brown has been able to solve a lot of problems because he has the cooperation of the legislature. I hope we keep our Democratic government in California.

The term limits encourage even more corruption because of the pressure on office-holders to be constantly on the lookout for their next job opportunity. Term limits would be horrible at the federal level.

An elected judiciary is a bad idea, as are term limits. Age limits, sure. Mandatory retirement at 70 or 75 would be a good idea--how many US Supreme Court justices have been effectively incapacitated or absent from the bench because of illness or declining mental capacities, but haven't retired?

I'd rather take my chances with the current system. Demographics should mean more Democratic presidents nominating more judges in the next twenty years.

And a twenty year "term limit" would have cost us the last 16 years of William O Douglas' service. I don't support term limits for anyone, ever.

that an amendment to the Constitution could be passed that would effectuate either thing. We've certainly had enough controversies over the SCOTUS in the last couple of centuries to possibly engender such change, and no one has even come close to mounting something that could pass even one house of Congress.

It ain't gonna happen, so opinions on it are worthless.

Everyone remembers the bad shit that goes down, but nobody remembers that this SC repealed DOMA and approved the ACA, just to name two.

n/t

Take our already over-politicized SCOTUS and drag it fully into our grotesquely broken political system? Um...no.