Supreme Court reform.

As a measure against corruption in the Supreme Court, what if the Constitution were changed so that the appointment process stays the same but "we the people" are given a way to initiate a recall vote on specific justices?

I'm not asking about feasibility I understand that it wouldn't be likely to happen any time soon.

legal decisions should be made independently of the people's passions.

Politicizing the judiciary even more than it is today would be bad.

With a high enough barrier to initiating a recall though I don't think it would be as bad. A move to have terms and elections would not be desirable but a recall is a different beast.

I'm thinking of the Congress' seeming unwillingness to invoke its impeachment powers. I mean surely Scalia has shown himself to be unworthy of the seat and yet still he sits.

It is frustrating and it seems like a better system is needed.

a "high-enough" barrier would be so high as to be meaningless.

Furthermore, the vast majority of the voting population has little concept of what the Supreme Court actually does.

I don't want ignorant people removing justices because they disagree with a decision. Those decisions, which I often disagree with, are still usually based in law. Most Americans are simply not qualified to judge them on their legal merits.

We'd be looking at a Supreme Court stacked with Christian Reconstructionists because the wingnuts would have recalled them all by now.

It could still be put to the people for the final vote. I didn't mean just starting the procedure means he has to go which I should have noted.

And if the nomination process stays the same you would need a Christian Reconstructionist President and congress to get a reconstructionist court.

is that the motivated fundamentalists would actively seek to remove every justice that voted in ways that offended them.'

The fact is, the Supreme Court is far from being the most egregious institution in our country. Have they made the occasional awful decision? Absolutely.

In most cases, they rectify them eventually.

The power to recall a Supreme Court Justice should never be altered. In its current form, the impeachment and removal power of the US Congress is so difficult to utilize, it is unlikely that it will be mustered when there is political motivation involved. According to Article III, Justices hold their Offices during "Good Behaviour."

There once was an attempt to remove a judge for political reasons. Samuel Chase was impeached in 1804, but was acquitted by the Senate in 1805 when it became clear the impeachment was based upon anti-federalist political feelings.

Justice Abe Fortas probably should have been removed, however he resigned after it became clear he accepted money from a private foundation whose ideals he supported in his opinions and votes on the bench. Some tried to remove Chief Justice Earl Warren in the mid-1960s but failed.

This system allows cases not based on political motivation to go through (Fortas) but prevents political desires to influence the court.

The time the political process come into the Supreme court process is the nomination process. Any democrat who complains about Scalia should have joined the thousands of us screaming at the top of our lungs to deny Scalia's appointment initially. HE received 0 no votes. That's it. That is the only chance to remove him for political reasons. Once they are on the bench (and this includes all federal justices and judges) shut the hell up about political reasons to remove them.

Anyone who tries to make it easier to remove a justice will get opposition from me. This includes Scalia. While I disagree with almost all of his political positions (He supports the State of Oregon's authority to pass and control its Physician Assisted Suicide law) he should not be removed form the court unless he has committed some "high crime or misdemeanor" or he is not in "Good Behaviour". We don't actually know which constitutional standard applies to Justices since the Senate in 1805 did not reach a decision on the standard to apply, and the Const mentions both.

Scalia may be conservative, but just being a republican is not reason to remove someone from the bench. Its a reason not to vote for a president, a congressman, senator, mayor, or even to vote to give the man a seat on the court to begin with. It is not a reason to remove someone.

Justice must not be altered by the political landscape. Giving the power to the people would allow voter turnout, weather, and political advertising monies to greatly alter the outcomes of recall votes. The US Senate will never have a problem getting 100 votes (unless there are vacancies or extreme illnesses preventing a vote or two) on a Supreme Court nomination or a potential removal after an impeachment is ordered by the House.