Thread: Should the judicial branch be democratically elected?

Originally Posted by SocialDemocrat

Not if Justices only served one term. I support staggered terms, with a new Justice appointed every 4 years or so in order to prevent a single presidency's appointees from singularly controlling the judiciary through court packing.

Okay, using your example, as there are Nine Justices, in order for only one to be appointed for each 4 year term you would have to stagger the appointments.

1. How would you work that from a starting point needing all nine seated at any one time?

2. If you could establish it somehow, then how do you prevent a two- term President from appointing a majority during his term in office?

3. How would you deal with deaths before a term was completed?

Originally Posted by Captain Adverse

Okay, using your example, as there are Nine Justices, in order for only one to be appointed for each 4 year term you would have to stagger the appointments.

1. How would you work that from a starting point needing all nine seated at any one time?

A timeline based on seniority, with the current justices being phased out in four year intervals.

2. If you could establish it somehow, then how do you prevent a two- term President from appointing a majority during his term in office?

A two term president would only have the opportunity to nominate two supreme court justices. This may change the overall balance of the court, but that's unavoidable and happens anyway with lifetime appointments.

3. How would you deal with deaths before a term was completed?

The successor to the deceased justice would be appointed by the incumbent presidency through the same process as other justices and only serve out the remainder of the term, in order to keep the cycle consistent.

Originally Posted by SocialDemocrat

A timeline based on seniority, with the current justices being phased out in four year intervals.



A two term president would only have the opportunity to nominate two supreme court justices. This may change the overall balance of the court, but that's unavoidable and happens anyway with lifetime appointments.



The successor to the deceased justice would be appointed by the incumbent presidency through the same process as other justices and only serve out the remainder of the term, in order to keep the cycle consistent.

Umm...your plan doesn't work mathematically. In order for each Justice to serve a single four year term before being replaced in time to maintain a nine member Court, you'd have to start with one Justice immediately, and then one at intervals of either every six months or every year later to get rid of the original nine. That means there will be an overlap at various points. A two term president could appoint at least 5 Justices during his period in office, and maybe more in the event of a death of a seated Justice.

Life appointments work, and remain the best idea of the drafters for the Supreme Court to function as it should IMO.

God no.

No freaking way!