The Supreme Idiocy

@helenS none of your beloved leftist judges would ever get in either. The other party could filibuster at will and submarine it. Every time

@helenS That justices were eever elected by anyone who worked in politics is absurd and inherently flawed.

@SW-User Yes, and that would force both parties to agree on impartial, neutral, non-partisan judges, or else the supreme court would cease to exist.
But what do I know... me and my big mouth 😐

@Graylight A 2/3 majority as a necessary condition for appointment would not solve all problems of course, but it might be a step in the right direction.
(I feel a bit uneasy because I'm talking about the internal affairs of a foreign country. My justification is that things which happen in America matter to more than America. They matter to the whole world.)

@helenS Poor America unless its the libs who are in control? If a 2/3 majority were required nothing would get done. And as we have seen with supreme court confirmations with Kavanaugh, the left spins up a lie , hires a witness and tries to destroy any conservative candidate they can. Clarence Thomas was relentlessly savaged and accused by then senator Joe Biden simply because he was a black conservative nominee. There were gaping holes in the judiciary and court cases were bogging down to the point there was no justice. Trump's administration corrected that. The Democrats refuse to ever vote for a conservative nominee when they are in the minority, and the republicans usually will finally vote just to get along. That needs to stop. Democrats should get back what they dish out, only then will there be order in the judicial nominee approval process.

@helenS elections have consequences. And, boy oh boy, will the dhims find that out after the midterms

@helenS the only thing which would improve it is more judges and a bigger court. But nobody would ever agree on who picks them

@TexChik Hey it wasn't my intention to defend one political party, and to accuse the other one of bad intentions. I'm sorry if you got that impression. My idea was simply to set up rules which make an appointment of non-partisan judges more likely. And of course that's also important for countries other than America.

@SW-User The lifetime appointment of supreme court judges is another problem, in my opinion. Lifetime positions are never a good idea.

@Graylight Federal judges in the US, including the Supreme Court, have never been elected.

@helenS The political left by definition has become corrupt and dangerous to America as founded. They used to stack the courts with leftist judges that legislated from the bench on a daily basis. The 9th circuit was the worst and they would interfere with any conservative action or president because they could. Trump corrected that but also using the conservative senate to fill vacancies that were years old because the left didnt want a conservative nominee in there to alter their majority. Now the pendulum swings back and the left whines at how unfair it is (now) because they cant manipulate the court.

@helenS Yes I wouldn't mind a mandatory retirement age. Say 80

AND the same applying to Congress

@SW-User ... or maybe the appointment should have to be confirmed by a 2/3 majority of the Congress every 5 years? So you can get rid of a guy who turns out to be intolerable. I mean that might happen. According to the Peter principle, people are promoted based on their success in previous jobs – until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent. This is where they stay put 😏

@helenS The constitution says the congress can impeach a judge if they see the need. The 5 year thing would be far too easy to use to change the court whenever a party had the majority.

@helenS It goes back and fourth. In the future I’m sure it will go back to the left.

@TexChik Thank you – I didn't know. See? I'm incompetent...

@jackson55 That wouldn't be any better, in my opinion. No political party should be able to install a judge without the other party's consent.

@helenS Then there would be no judges

@TexChik Are there judges now? Or just political partisans with legal training?

@helenS That’s a good idea but it will never happen. When the Democratic Party is in control they appoint liberal judges, and the republicans appoint conservatives. It goes back and forth just like the house and senate.

@helenS Hi Helen... We haven't ever spoken much but I wanted to respond to your comments on the selection of the supremes.

The first change you suggest is involving the whole Congress rather than just the Senate currently. The reason the Founders held the Senate up for certain functions separate from the House (like ratifying treaties and advising & consenting to the president's judicial appointments) is because the Senate, due to its structural differences, is the less political of the two houses of Congress. If you add the House to the process, you will increase rather than decrease political influences.

Second, you advocated increasing the approval vote from the current 60% to 67%. There are very few things that pass the Senate with that high of a super majority. I fear at the 67% you advocate that we would have even more open seats on the federal judiciary than we have now.

@sarabee1995 who puts non elected people into a position for life... thats fucked up

@Elena05 so they aren't tempted to decide anything based on an upcoming election.

One of the best things the framers did.

@helenS They can't. Unless thry fuck up and are such a minority they have no say

@Elena05 They are chosen and confirmed by elected people. Vote for more liberal presidents and senators, and you will get more liberal judges. Vote more conservative and you'll get more conservative judges. Etc.