Associate Supreme Court Justices Should Have 10 Year Terms

Call me old fashioned but I tend to think judges should actually, you know, have some sort of legal background so they know both the law and the legal process.

I guess my sarcastic tone was too subtle.

So, let the people from each Congressional district pick their own judge. The judge they pick wouldn't have to live in that district, of course.

If you want to be really old fashioned remember that lawyers did not used to attend a law school.

IIRC future president Calvin Coolidge never attended law school yet became a lawyer. In some states I don't think it is a requirement today. Just pass the exam.

I really like @Paladin 's idea coupled with @Dayton3 's . I think this is a good solution.

So we can have the makeup of our judiciary dictated by Republican gerrymandering? Yeah, that's a real improvement.

It's only gerrymandering when it's Republicans, right?

Republicans do seem to be particularly fond of it. You'll note that (1) the states that have gone to a nonpartisan redistricting commission tend to be Democratic-run, and (2) Republicans kick and scream the loudest when you try to enact a nonpartisan commission (see: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, in which Republicans angry about losing their ability to manipulate the system went all the way to the Supreme Court in their effort to overturn the reforms voted in by their own constituents).

I've seen this same whining since I joined TBBS in 09', forgive me if I'm skeptical.

You can look at the evidence for yourself; I just pointed you to it.

Or just google "Redistricting Majority Project."

Republicans just aren't big fans of democracy. Nor should they be. Every political scientist knows that when voting and competitiveness are expanded, it favors the Dems 2:1. This is because Dems have (historically) favored more populist policies. Republicans depend on institutional inertia, voting restrictions, etc, to keep themselves in power.

You mean like slavery, segregation, socialism, and communism?

Indeed,

TJ was wrong about the judiciary. Hell, the contradiction of his fears of an all-powerful judiciary is right in that letter itself!

As an aside, while I get that it's a biased source, my esteem of Jefferson has really taken a hit since listening to the audiobook of Ron Chernow's Alexander Hamilton. Like, that famous Jefferson quote, "The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots"? Turns out that was basically a denial of/apologetic for the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. Ick.

While that may be true, there are other quotes that support the view that it could also applied to ourselves. Jefferson only supported the French Revolution early on, once he leased what they were doing, he dropped support.

@Order2Chaos, his fears about the general welfare were spot on, I.e. Obamacare. And that's just one example.

OK then you may have lots of ties and a two term president that could possibly have nominated all 8. Doesnt sound good.

I assumed the Chief Justice (who would break ties) would still be a lifetime appointment

I assume this is to me. He would cast two votes then? (and for your info, I go by the name Dogbert at TK)

No. Where do you get that idea? Normally when a Supreme Court is overwhelmingly one sided the Chief Justice doesn't vote.

And I don't hang around Troll Kingdom (I assume that was the TK you were referring to).

Could you provide the chicken coop stall number citation?

A quick skim of the last decade's worth of Supreme Court cases shows that to be untrue. The chief justice has only missed a few votes out all the cases the court has heard in that time, and has voted in dozens of 9-0 decisions.

OK. I was incorrect.

Nah, he's just that obtuse

this should be your user title.

2009?
fuckin' noob... most of us had been banned from there years ago by then.

He did something good by admitting he made a mistake. Don't discourage it.