Mixing
Is there any talk to change the nomination process for the SCOTUS?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
I have previously asked why the SCOTUS nomination and confirmation process is what it is.
What I gather is that it ideally is a way to keep the Judicial branch independent (lifetime appointment removes the need of re-election), and that is the only reason to have a lifetime appointment.
Yet, it seems to me that this is bringing more problems than it solves, since the current news about the most recent appointment seem to show:
the Judiciary in general, and the SCOTUS in particular does not appear to be independent at all, since Judges appear to be evaluated, from both sides, on the basis of their political alignment, not their judicial training and ability (see for example Republicans refusing to hold hearings in 2016 just because they would nominate a Judge "not from their party").
as mentioned in the comments to an answer to the other question, "lifetime" is also a matter of political alignment (as we have recently seen), with only death being a possible obstacle to political succession.
Personally I don't see how this is sustainable for a democracy.
I acknowledge that the situation seems to have worsened lately (I read that a former Judge, Scalia, was confirmed in 1986 by a unanimous Senate), but the situation does not appear to be able to improve any time soon.
Is there in the US any talk about reforming the way the Judicial branch in general, and the SCOTUS nomination process in particular, work?
united-states supreme-court
asked 4 hours ago
Federico
3,46532346
 |Â
show 5 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
I have previously asked why the SCOTUS nomination and confirmation process is what it is.
What I gather is that it ideally is a way to keep the Judicial branch independent (lifetime appointment removes the need of re-election), and that is the only reason to have a lifetime appointment.
Yet, it seems to me that this is bringing more problems than it solves, since the current news about the most recent appointment seem to show:
the Judiciary in general, and the SCOTUS in particular does not appear to be independent at all, since Judges appear to be evaluated, from both sides, on the basis of their political alignment, not their judicial training and ability (see for example Republicans refusing to hold hearings in 2016 just because they would nominate a Judge "not from their party").
as mentioned in the comments to an answer to the other question, "lifetime" is also a matter of political alignment (as we have recently seen), with only death being a possible obstacle to political succession.
Personally I don't see how this is sustainable for a democracy.
I acknowledge that the situation seems to have worsened lately (I read that a former Judge, Scalia, was confirmed in 1986 by a unanimous Senate), but the situation does not appear to be able to improve any time soon.
Is there in the US any talk about reforming the way the Judicial branch in general, and the SCOTUS nomination process in particular, work?
united-states supreme-court
asked 4 hours ago
Federico
3,46532346
1
I think this question would be improved by removing the discussion of the Italian system, as it distracts from the main point of the question. I predict that, as it stands, it will attract answers attacking the Italian system rather than listing reform proposals in the US.
– Deolater
4 hours ago
@Deolater I've done it. But that's a sad state for this SE to be in.
– Federico
4 hours ago
1
And what would be the alternative? There aren't that many countries with a completely independent (not at least partially politically appointed) supreme court (equivalent) politics.stackexchange.com/questions/33720/… Another way to tackle this would be to lessen the stakes (i.e. power) of the supreme court, e.g. using the Canadian model but I don't see that happening
– Fizz
4 hours ago
@Fizz see the original version
– Federico
3 hours ago
This is a nice little graph (under Table I (continued)) of the Justices and who their votes align with. If you'll notice, Ginsberg is the most disagreeable, having disagreed with Alito and Gorsech in 46.7% of cases. Sotomayor disagreed with Gorsech at the same rate. These are the lowest percentages for all justices. We can probably attribute Gorsech with his newness on the courts and can expect numbers to rise over time. harvardlawreview.org/2017/11/supreme-court-2016-term-statistics
– hszmv
2 hours ago
 |Â
show 5 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
I have previously asked why the SCOTUS nomination and confirmation process is what it is.
What I gather is that it ideally is a way to keep the Judicial branch independent (lifetime appointment removes the need of re-election), and that is the only reason to have a lifetime appointment.
Yet, it seems to me that this is bringing more problems than it solves, since the current news about the most recent appointment seem to show:
the Judiciary in general, and the SCOTUS in particular does not appear to be independent at all, since Judges appear to be evaluated, from both sides, on the basis of their political alignment, not their judicial training and ability (see for example Republicans refusing to hold hearings in 2016 just because they would nominate a Judge "not from their party").
as mentioned in the comments to an answer to the other question, "lifetime" is also a matter of political alignment (as we have recently seen), with only death being a possible obstacle to political succession.
Personally I don't see how this is sustainable for a democracy.
I acknowledge that the situation seems to have worsened lately (I read that a former Judge, Scalia, was confirmed in 1986 by a unanimous Senate), but the situation does not appear to be able to improve any time soon.
Is there in the US any talk about reforming the way the Judicial branch in general, and the SCOTUS nomination process in particular, work?
united-states supreme-court
asked 4 hours ago
Federico
3,46532346
I have previously asked why the SCOTUS nomination and confirmation process is what it is.
What I gather is that it ideally is a way to keep the Judicial branch independent (lifetime appointment removes the need of re-election), and that is the only reason to have a lifetime appointment.
Yet, it seems to me that this is bringing more problems than it solves, since the current news about the most recent appointment seem to show:
the Judiciary in general, and the SCOTUS in particular does not appear to be independent at all, since Judges appear to be evaluated, from both sides, on the basis of their political alignment, not their judicial training and ability (see for example Republicans refusing to hold hearings in 2016 just because they would nominate a Judge "not from their party").
as mentioned in the comments to an answer to the other question, "lifetime" is also a matter of political alignment (as we have recently seen), with only death being a possible obstacle to political succession.
Personally I don't see how this is sustainable for a democracy.
I acknowledge that the situation seems to have worsened lately (I read that a former Judge, Scalia, was confirmed in 1986 by a unanimous Senate), but the situation does not appear to be able to improve any time soon.
Is there in the US any talk about reforming the way the Judicial branch in general, and the SCOTUS nomination process in particular, work?
united-states supreme-court
united-states supreme-court
asked 4 hours ago
Federico
3,46532346
asked 4 hours ago
Federico
3,46532346
edited 4 hours ago
asked 4 hours ago
Federico
3,46532346
asked 4 hours ago
Federico
3,46532346
asked 4 hours ago
Federico
3,46532346
3,46532346
1
I think this question would be improved by removing the discussion of the Italian system, as it distracts from the main point of the question. I predict that, as it stands, it will attract answers attacking the Italian system rather than listing reform proposals in the US.
– Deolater
4 hours ago
@Deolater I've done it. But that's a sad state for this SE to be in.
– Federico
4 hours ago
1
And what would be the alternative? There aren't that many countries with a completely independent (not at least partially politically appointed) supreme court (equivalent) politics.stackexchange.com/questions/33720/… Another way to tackle this would be to lessen the stakes (i.e. power) of the supreme court, e.g. using the Canadian model but I don't see that happening
– Fizz
4 hours ago
@Fizz see the original version
– Federico
3 hours ago
This is a nice little graph (under Table I (continued)) of the Justices and who their votes align with. If you'll notice, Ginsberg is the most disagreeable, having disagreed with Alito and Gorsech in 46.7% of cases. Sotomayor disagreed with Gorsech at the same rate. These are the lowest percentages for all justices. We can probably attribute Gorsech with his newness on the courts and can expect numbers to rise over time. harvardlawreview.org/2017/11/supreme-court-2016-term-statistics
– hszmv
2 hours ago
 |Â
show 5 more comments
1
I think this question would be improved by removing the discussion of the Italian system, as it distracts from the main point of the question. I predict that, as it stands, it will attract answers attacking the Italian system rather than listing reform proposals in the US.
– Deolater
4 hours ago
@Deolater I've done it. But that's a sad state for this SE to be in.
– Federico
4 hours ago
1
And what would be the alternative? There aren't that many countries with a completely independent (not at least partially politically appointed) supreme court (equivalent) politics.stackexchange.com/questions/33720/… Another way to tackle this would be to lessen the stakes (i.e. power) of the supreme court, e.g. using the Canadian model but I don't see that happening
– Fizz
4 hours ago
@Fizz see the original version
– Federico
3 hours ago
This is a nice little graph (under Table I (continued)) of the Justices and who their votes align with. If you'll notice, Ginsberg is the most disagreeable, having disagreed with Alito and Gorsech in 46.7% of cases. Sotomayor disagreed with Gorsech at the same rate. These are the lowest percentages for all justices. We can probably attribute Gorsech with his newness on the courts and can expect numbers to rise over time. harvardlawreview.org/2017/11/supreme-court-2016-term-statistics
– hszmv
2 hours ago
1
1
I think this question would be improved by removing the discussion of the Italian system, as it distracts from the main point of the question. I predict that, as it stands, it will attract answers attacking the Italian system rather than listing reform proposals in the US.
– Deolater
4 hours ago
I think this question would be improved by removing the discussion of the Italian system, as it distracts from the main point of the question. I predict that, as it stands, it will attract answers attacking the Italian system rather than listing reform proposals in the US.
– Deolater
4 hours ago
@Deolater I've done it. But that's a sad state for this SE to be in.
– Federico
4 hours ago
@Deolater I've done it. But that's a sad state for this SE to be in.
– Federico
4 hours ago
1
1
And what would be the alternative? There aren't that many countries with a completely independent (not at least partially politically appointed) supreme court (equivalent) politics.stackexchange.com/questions/33720/… Another way to tackle this would be to lessen the stakes (i.e. power) of the supreme court, e.g. using the Canadian model but I don't see that happening
– Fizz
4 hours ago
And what would be the alternative? There aren't that many countries with a completely independent (not at least partially politically appointed) supreme court (equivalent) politics.stackexchange.com/questions/33720/… Another way to tackle this would be to lessen the stakes (i.e. power) of the supreme court, e.g. using the Canadian model but I don't see that happening
– Fizz
4 hours ago
@Fizz see the original version
– Federico
3 hours ago
@Fizz see the original version
– Federico
3 hours ago
This is a nice little graph (under Table I (continued)) of the Justices and who their votes align with. If you'll notice, Ginsberg is the most disagreeable, having disagreed with Alito and Gorsech in 46.7% of cases. Sotomayor disagreed with Gorsech at the same rate. These are the lowest percentages for all justices. We can probably attribute Gorsech with his newness on the courts and can expect numbers to rise over time. harvardlawreview.org/2017/11/supreme-court-2016-term-statistics
– hszmv
2 hours ago
This is a nice little graph (under Table I (continued)) of the Justices and who their votes align with. If you'll notice, Ginsberg is the most disagreeable, having disagreed with Alito and Gorsech in 46.7% of cases. Sotomayor disagreed with Gorsech at the same rate. These are the lowest percentages for all justices. We can probably attribute Gorsech with his newness on the courts and can expect numbers to rise over time. harvardlawreview.org/2017/11/supreme-court-2016-term-statistics
– hszmv
2 hours ago
 |Â
show 5 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
I'm not aware of particular proposals that have a lot of legs, but in one 2012 poll
Just one in eight Americans said the justices decided cases based only on legal analysis. [...]
The public is skeptical about life tenure for the justices, with 60 percent agreeing with the statement that “appointing Supreme Court justices for life is a bad thing because it gives them too much power.†One-third agreed with a contrary statement, that life tenure for justices “is a good thing because it helps keep them independent from political pressures.â€Â
Supreme justices in Germany have limited-time appointments (12-years), so that's something that's done elsewhere.
Actually, it looks like there's a somewhat concrete proposal for 18-year mandates in the US. At least that proposal gets some attention in law reviews:
Just under three-quarters of the
country think it’s time to get rid of life tenure altogether and replace it
with eighteen year fixed terms. Calls to do so are coming from across the spectrum of public intellectuals. Those in favor on the left include
Chemerinsky, Akhil Amar, and Henry Monaghan. On the right you
find leading lights: Steve Calabresi (founder of the Federalist Society),
politicians like Rick Perry and Michael Huckabee, and conservative
thinkers like John McGinnis and Sai Prakash. Even Justice Breyer
has said this might make sense. Calabresi, an originalist if ever
there was one, argues scathingly (along with coauthor Jim Lindgren)
that “Although life tenure for the Supreme Court may have made
sense in the eighteenth-century world of the Framers, it is
particularly inappropriate now, given the enormous power that
Supreme Court Justices have come to wield.†Strong words.
Moreover, the movement to limit life tenure looks positively
quotidian compared to what Senator Ted Cruz has to say. This serious
contender for the head of the Republican ticket in 2016 thinks you
should stand for retention elections. He’s every bit as unhappy as
Chemerinsky: “The Court’s brazen action undermines its very
legitimacy,†he wrote, and so he wants to hold you accountable.
Indeed, in tone Cruz sounds remarkably like Chemerinsky:
As a constitutional conservative, I do not make this proposal lightly. I began my
career as a law clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist—one of our nation’s greatest
chief justices—and I have spent a decade litigating before the Supreme Court. I
revere that institution, and have no doubt that Rehnquist would be heartbroken at
what has befallen our highest court. But, sadly the Court’s hubris and thirst for
power have reached unprecedented levels. And that calls for meaningful action, lest
Congress be guilty of acquiescing to this assault on the rule of law.
Effecting this kind of fundamental change would not be easy, of
course, and thus is unlikely to happen. There are proposals to impose
term limits by statute, the leading contender—advanced both by
Calabresi and Paul Carrington—being a regular system of staggered
appointments every two years and eighteen-year limits.61 But
Calabresi himself acknowledges these probably run into constitutional
trouble. A constitutional amendment is never an easy thing to
accomplish.
answered 3 hours ago
Fizz
10.2k12368
If you read the original version of the question (and the linked one), in addition to Germany, I also gave the example of Italy, with 9 year terms.
– Federico
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Considering the appointment process is in the Constitution, (i.e. the President nominates and the Senate must approve), there's no real talk about changing that. Now the the Senate approval process has changed, from the nomination being subject to filibuster to not being allowed to filibuster. So your only hope is for the Senate to pass a rule requiring a supermajority for judges again. That cat is out of the bag and isn't likely to return so there's no talk on that front either.
answered 4 hours ago
pboss3010
1112
New contributor
pboss3010 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
I'm not aware of particular proposals that have a lot of legs, but in one 2012 poll
Just one in eight Americans said the justices decided cases based only on legal analysis. [...]
The public is skeptical about life tenure for the justices, with 60 percent agreeing with the statement that “appointing Supreme Court justices for life is a bad thing because it gives them too much power.†One-third agreed with a contrary statement, that life tenure for justices “is a good thing because it helps keep them independent from political pressures.â€Â
Supreme justices in Germany have limited-time appointments (12-years), so that's something that's done elsewhere.
Actually, it looks like there's a somewhat concrete proposal for 18-year mandates in the US. At least that proposal gets some attention in law reviews:
Just under three-quarters of the
country think it’s time to get rid of life tenure altogether and replace it
with eighteen year fixed terms. Calls to do so are coming from across the spectrum of public intellectuals. Those in favor on the left include
Chemerinsky, Akhil Amar, and Henry Monaghan. On the right you
find leading lights: Steve Calabresi (founder of the Federalist Society),
politicians like Rick Perry and Michael Huckabee, and conservative
thinkers like John McGinnis and Sai Prakash. Even Justice Breyer
has said this might make sense. Calabresi, an originalist if ever
there was one, argues scathingly (along with coauthor Jim Lindgren)
that “Although life tenure for the Supreme Court may have made
sense in the eighteenth-century world of the Framers, it is
particularly inappropriate now, given the enormous power that
Supreme Court Justices have come to wield.†Strong words.
Moreover, the movement to limit life tenure looks positively
quotidian compared to what Senator Ted Cruz has to say. This serious
contender for the head of the Republican ticket in 2016 thinks you
should stand for retention elections. He’s every bit as unhappy as
Chemerinsky: “The Court’s brazen action undermines its very
legitimacy,†he wrote, and so he wants to hold you accountable.
Indeed, in tone Cruz sounds remarkably like Chemerinsky:
As a constitutional conservative, I do not make this proposal lightly. I began my
career as a law clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist—one of our nation’s greatest
chief justices—and I have spent a decade litigating before the Supreme Court. I
revere that institution, and have no doubt that Rehnquist would be heartbroken at
what has befallen our highest court. But, sadly the Court’s hubris and thirst for
power have reached unprecedented levels. And that calls for meaningful action, lest
Congress be guilty of acquiescing to this assault on the rule of law.
Effecting this kind of fundamental change would not be easy, of
course, and thus is unlikely to happen. There are proposals to impose
term limits by statute, the leading contender—advanced both by
Calabresi and Paul Carrington—being a regular system of staggered
appointments every two years and eighteen-year limits.61 But
Calabresi himself acknowledges these probably run into constitutional
trouble. A constitutional amendment is never an easy thing to
accomplish.
answered 3 hours ago
Fizz
10.2k12368
If you read the original version of the question (and the linked one), in addition to Germany, I also gave the example of Italy, with 9 year terms.
– Federico
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
I'm not aware of particular proposals that have a lot of legs, but in one 2012 poll
Just one in eight Americans said the justices decided cases based only on legal analysis. [...]
The public is skeptical about life tenure for the justices, with 60 percent agreeing with the statement that “appointing Supreme Court justices for life is a bad thing because it gives them too much power.†One-third agreed with a contrary statement, that life tenure for justices “is a good thing because it helps keep them independent from political pressures.â€Â
Supreme justices in Germany have limited-time appointments (12-years), so that's something that's done elsewhere.
Actually, it looks like there's a somewhat concrete proposal for 18-year mandates in the US. At least that proposal gets some attention in law reviews:
Just under three-quarters of the
country think it’s time to get rid of life tenure altogether and replace it
with eighteen year fixed terms. Calls to do so are coming from across the spectrum of public intellectuals. Those in favor on the left include
Chemerinsky, Akhil Amar, and Henry Monaghan. On the right you
find leading lights: Steve Calabresi (founder of the Federalist Society),
politicians like Rick Perry and Michael Huckabee, and conservative
thinkers like John McGinnis and Sai Prakash. Even Justice Breyer
has said this might make sense. Calabresi, an originalist if ever
there was one, argues scathingly (along with coauthor Jim Lindgren)
that “Although life tenure for the Supreme Court may have made
sense in the eighteenth-century world of the Framers, it is
particularly inappropriate now, given the enormous power that
Supreme Court Justices have come to wield.†Strong words.
Moreover, the movement to limit life tenure looks positively
quotidian compared to what Senator Ted Cruz has to say. This serious
contender for the head of the Republican ticket in 2016 thinks you
should stand for retention elections. He’s every bit as unhappy as
Chemerinsky: “The Court’s brazen action undermines its very
legitimacy,†he wrote, and so he wants to hold you accountable.
Indeed, in tone Cruz sounds remarkably like Chemerinsky:
As a constitutional conservative, I do not make this proposal lightly. I began my
career as a law clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist—one of our nation’s greatest
chief justices—and I have spent a decade litigating before the Supreme Court. I
revere that institution, and have no doubt that Rehnquist would be heartbroken at
what has befallen our highest court. But, sadly the Court’s hubris and thirst for
power have reached unprecedented levels. And that calls for meaningful action, lest
Congress be guilty of acquiescing to this assault on the rule of law.
Effecting this kind of fundamental change would not be easy, of
course, and thus is unlikely to happen. There are proposals to impose
term limits by statute, the leading contender—advanced both by
Calabresi and Paul Carrington—being a regular system of staggered
appointments every two years and eighteen-year limits.61 But
Calabresi himself acknowledges these probably run into constitutional
trouble. A constitutional amendment is never an easy thing to
accomplish.
answered 3 hours ago
Fizz
10.2k12368
If you read the original version of the question (and the linked one), in addition to Germany, I also gave the example of Italy, with 9 year terms.
– Federico
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
I'm not aware of particular proposals that have a lot of legs, but in one 2012 poll
Just one in eight Americans said the justices decided cases based only on legal analysis. [...]
The public is skeptical about life tenure for the justices, with 60 percent agreeing with the statement that “appointing Supreme Court justices for life is a bad thing because it gives them too much power.†One-third agreed with a contrary statement, that life tenure for justices “is a good thing because it helps keep them independent from political pressures.â€Â
Supreme justices in Germany have limited-time appointments (12-years), so that's something that's done elsewhere.
Actually, it looks like there's a somewhat concrete proposal for 18-year mandates in the US. At least that proposal gets some attention in law reviews:
Just under three-quarters of the
country think it’s time to get rid of life tenure altogether and replace it
with eighteen year fixed terms. Calls to do so are coming from across the spectrum of public intellectuals. Those in favor on the left include
Chemerinsky, Akhil Amar, and Henry Monaghan. On the right you
find leading lights: Steve Calabresi (founder of the Federalist Society),
politicians like Rick Perry and Michael Huckabee, and conservative
thinkers like John McGinnis and Sai Prakash. Even Justice Breyer
has said this might make sense. Calabresi, an originalist if ever
there was one, argues scathingly (along with coauthor Jim Lindgren)
that “Although life tenure for the Supreme Court may have made
sense in the eighteenth-century world of the Framers, it is
particularly inappropriate now, given the enormous power that
Supreme Court Justices have come to wield.†Strong words.
Moreover, the movement to limit life tenure looks positively
quotidian compared to what Senator Ted Cruz has to say. This serious
contender for the head of the Republican ticket in 2016 thinks you
should stand for retention elections. He’s every bit as unhappy as
Chemerinsky: “The Court’s brazen action undermines its very
legitimacy,†he wrote, and so he wants to hold you accountable.
Indeed, in tone Cruz sounds remarkably like Chemerinsky:
As a constitutional conservative, I do not make this proposal lightly. I began my
career as a law clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist—one of our nation’s greatest
chief justices—and I have spent a decade litigating before the Supreme Court. I
revere that institution, and have no doubt that Rehnquist would be heartbroken at
what has befallen our highest court. But, sadly the Court’s hubris and thirst for
power have reached unprecedented levels. And that calls for meaningful action, lest
Congress be guilty of acquiescing to this assault on the rule of law.
Effecting this kind of fundamental change would not be easy, of
course, and thus is unlikely to happen. There are proposals to impose
term limits by statute, the leading contender—advanced both by
Calabresi and Paul Carrington—being a regular system of staggered
appointments every two years and eighteen-year limits.61 But
Calabresi himself acknowledges these probably run into constitutional
trouble. A constitutional amendment is never an easy thing to
accomplish.
answered 3 hours ago
Fizz
10.2k12368
I'm not aware of particular proposals that have a lot of legs, but in one 2012 poll
Just one in eight Americans said the justices decided cases based only on legal analysis. [...]
The public is skeptical about life tenure for the justices, with 60 percent agreeing with the statement that “appointing Supreme Court justices for life is a bad thing because it gives them too much power.†One-third agreed with a contrary statement, that life tenure for justices “is a good thing because it helps keep them independent from political pressures.â€Â
Supreme justices in Germany have limited-time appointments (12-years), so that's something that's done elsewhere.
Actually, it looks like there's a somewhat concrete proposal for 18-year mandates in the US. At least that proposal gets some attention in law reviews:
Just under three-quarters of the
country think it’s time to get rid of life tenure altogether and replace it
with eighteen year fixed terms. Calls to do so are coming from across the spectrum of public intellectuals. Those in favor on the left include
Chemerinsky, Akhil Amar, and Henry Monaghan. On the right you
find leading lights: Steve Calabresi (founder of the Federalist Society),
politicians like Rick Perry and Michael Huckabee, and conservative
thinkers like John McGinnis and Sai Prakash. Even Justice Breyer
has said this might make sense. Calabresi, an originalist if ever
there was one, argues scathingly (along with coauthor Jim Lindgren)
that “Although life tenure for the Supreme Court may have made
sense in the eighteenth-century world of the Framers, it is
particularly inappropriate now, given the enormous power that
Supreme Court Justices have come to wield.†Strong words.
Moreover, the movement to limit life tenure looks positively
quotidian compared to what Senator Ted Cruz has to say. This serious
contender for the head of the Republican ticket in 2016 thinks you
should stand for retention elections. He’s every bit as unhappy as
Chemerinsky: “The Court’s brazen action undermines its very
legitimacy,†he wrote, and so he wants to hold you accountable.
Indeed, in tone Cruz sounds remarkably like Chemerinsky:
As a constitutional conservative, I do not make this proposal lightly. I began my
career as a law clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist—one of our nation’s greatest
chief justices—and I have spent a decade litigating before the Supreme Court. I
revere that institution, and have no doubt that Rehnquist would be heartbroken at
what has befallen our highest court. But, sadly the Court’s hubris and thirst for
power have reached unprecedented levels. And that calls for meaningful action, lest
Congress be guilty of acquiescing to this assault on the rule of law.
Effecting this kind of fundamental change would not be easy, of
course, and thus is unlikely to happen. There are proposals to impose
term limits by statute, the leading contender—advanced both by
Calabresi and Paul Carrington—being a regular system of staggered
appointments every two years and eighteen-year limits.61 But
Calabresi himself acknowledges these probably run into constitutional
trouble. A constitutional amendment is never an easy thing to
accomplish.
answered 3 hours ago
Fizz
10.2k12368
edited 3 hours ago
answered 3 hours ago
Fizz
10.2k12368
answered 3 hours ago
Fizz
10.2k12368
answered 3 hours ago
Fizz
10.2k12368
10.2k12368
If you read the original version of the question (and the linked one), in addition to Germany, I also gave the example of Italy, with 9 year terms.
– Federico
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
If you read the original version of the question (and the linked one), in addition to Germany, I also gave the example of Italy, with 9 year terms.
– Federico
1 hour ago
If you read the original version of the question (and the linked one), in addition to Germany, I also gave the example of Italy, with 9 year terms.
– Federico
1 hour ago
If you read the original version of the question (and the linked one), in addition to Germany, I also gave the example of Italy, with 9 year terms.
– Federico
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Considering the appointment process is in the Constitution, (i.e. the President nominates and the Senate must approve), there's no real talk about changing that. Now the the Senate approval process has changed, from the nomination being subject to filibuster to not being allowed to filibuster. So your only hope is for the Senate to pass a rule requiring a supermajority for judges again. That cat is out of the bag and isn't likely to return so there's no talk on that front either.
answered 4 hours ago
pboss3010
1112
New contributor
pboss3010 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Considering the appointment process is in the Constitution, (i.e. the President nominates and the Senate must approve), there's no real talk about changing that. Now the the Senate approval process has changed, from the nomination being subject to filibuster to not being allowed to filibuster. So your only hope is for the Senate to pass a rule requiring a supermajority for judges again. That cat is out of the bag and isn't likely to return so there's no talk on that front either.
answered 4 hours ago
pboss3010
1112
New contributor
pboss3010 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Considering the appointment process is in the Constitution, (i.e. the President nominates and the Senate must approve), there's no real talk about changing that. Now the the Senate approval process has changed, from the nomination being subject to filibuster to not being allowed to filibuster. So your only hope is for the Senate to pass a rule requiring a supermajority for judges again. That cat is out of the bag and isn't likely to return so there's no talk on that front either.
answered 4 hours ago
pboss3010
1112
New contributor
pboss3010 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Considering the appointment process is in the Constitution, (i.e. the President nominates and the Senate must approve), there's no real talk about changing that. Now the the Senate approval process has changed, from the nomination being subject to filibuster to not being allowed to filibuster. So your only hope is for the Senate to pass a rule requiring a supermajority for judges again. That cat is out of the bag and isn't likely to return so there's no talk on that front either.
answered 4 hours ago
pboss3010
1112
New contributor
pboss3010 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 4 hours ago
pboss3010
1112
New contributor
pboss3010 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 4 hours ago
pboss3010
1112
answered 4 hours ago
pboss3010
1112
1112
New contributor
pboss3010 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
pboss3010 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
pboss3010 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f34159%2fis-there-any-talk-to-change-the-nomination-process-for-the-scotus%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
I think this question would be improved by removing the discussion of the Italian system, as it distracts from the main point of the question. I predict that, as it stands, it will attract answers attacking the Italian system rather than listing reform proposals in the US.
– Deolater
4 hours ago
@Deolater I've done it. But that's a sad state for this SE to be in.
– Federico
4 hours ago
1
And what would be the alternative? There aren't that many countries with a completely independent (not at least partially politically appointed) supreme court (equivalent) politics.stackexchange.com/questions/33720/… Another way to tackle this would be to lessen the stakes (i.e. power) of the supreme court, e.g. using the Canadian model but I don't see that happening
– Fizz
4 hours ago
@Fizz see the original version
– Federico
3 hours ago
This is a nice little graph (under Table I (continued)) of the Justices and who their votes align with. If you'll notice, Ginsberg is the most disagreeable, having disagreed with Alito and Gorsech in 46.7% of cases. Sotomayor disagreed with Gorsech at the same rate. These are the lowest percentages for all justices. We can probably attribute Gorsech with his newness on the courts and can expect numbers to rise over time. harvardlawreview.org/2017/11/supreme-court-2016-term-statistics
– hszmv
2 hours ago