Agnostic.com

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

11 comments

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

2

maybe two thirds majority.

0

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.

2

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.

1

Even two-thirds would be better.

2

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.)

3

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

1

at least 60% - but 75 would work !

1

Yes!

5

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.

1

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

3

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.