11 4

Should a vote of 51% vote to elect a Supreme Court judge for life be changed to75% for such an important position?

Marine 8 Nov 30

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


maybe two thirds majority.


It used to be 60. A few years ago the democrats made it 51. This was touted as a victory for democracy. Fast forward a few years they now claim democracy is a failure. Democrats love seeking power. But they always assume they will have power. Arrogance and ingnorance is their bliss.

Mistakes happen but that does not mean one cannot correct them.


Go back to 60% and limit judge appointments to ten years with a minimum age of 55. A judge could be re-appointed for a second ten- year term by Congress, but no more than two terms.

Terms with optional re-appointment is an interesting idea.


Even two-thirds would be better.


The system is weak for as long as the appointments are dominated by political considerations.
Ideally, a committee made up of senior justices should elect one of their number to be a justice of the supreme court, subject to ratification by the existing supreme court justices .... and then have to be NOT DISAPPROVED (note the subtle difference!) by more than 33% of the senate. (in other words abstaining is tacit approval.)


Just go back to 60 and I would be happy, but, definitely 60 to 75.


at least 60% - but 75 would work !




It used to be that people were appointed to the Supreme Court after many years of exceptional service. This changed when George W the idiot appointed John Roberts to the court when he was only 48 and made him Chief Justice a couple of years later. Yes, I agree, this should not be a political appointment, but our country has become so divided that I don't hold much hope for a more reasonable government.


yes, I believe so that would make it much less partisan.


It would seem to me that scraping out 51% of the senate to elect someone who is to appointed for life isn't fair to the other 49% of the population.After all this person is supposed to represent all of the public not just 51%.Getting a vote of 75% seems more reasonable. Second , who wants 80 year old plus judges representing them. I am 80 years old and I know how hard it is to maintain focus. I would think 70 would be a better age to retire these judges. After all I believe the FBI must retire some where in their 50's??Both changes are needed now!

@Morganfreeman Good morning . I see you haven't lost your touch.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:234507
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.