Bobby Jindal: ‘Let’s just get rid of the court’

MSNBC ^ | 6/27/2015 | Adam Howard

[RobbyS]

One need not create a court above the Supreme Court, but by statute a court of Appeals consisting like the old circuit courts of one justice of the Supreme Court and four or five judges chosen by the several States, to sit in banc to review any constitutional questions concerning the rights of the states of the Union.

[virgil]

Somebody on the court is talking to the white house or they wouldn’t have been so clearly prepared for the ruling.

No doubt. There had to have been some coordination there. The court took their orders from the WH.

[trebb]

You say you want a revolution?

Listened to the song the other day as a way to un-clench my jaws.

[WHBates]

Well Roberts does seem to be a weasel.

[fatnotlazy]

“So you’re saying candidates for the Supreme Court should campaign for the job, engage in endless fundraising, and be beholden to the unholy alliance of billionaire donors and LIVs who put them in office?”

****

Where I live, local judges don't campaign for the most part. For many years they didn't even advertise. Today, we do see commercials, but they mostly talk about the judge's qualifications for the job.

I would say, no campaigning for the federal judiciary. Ideally, the media should publish the candidate's qualifications — publish a resume giving the candidate's education, experience, if previously a judge — how he has ruled and so on. They should not be funded by or in any way affiliated with any business or political entity. If they are, they should be made to resign or otherwise sever ties.

All candidates should be thoroughly investigated by a non-political committee comprised of people in the legal profession and ordinary citizens. There should be minimum requirements, preferably experience in the federal court system. A candidate without federal experience should be a state judge with a minimum number of years’ experience.

Just throwing out some ideas here.

What we have now are judges who are beholden — particularly to the president who nominated them and any organization behind the president with an agenda to advance. I don't see that as better than letting the people decide.

[KC_Lion]

Back in the Sixties when Earl Warren was running roughshod over the Constitution, there was a suggestion to create a Court of Union one level higher than the Supreme Court. This would have meant that the Chief Justices of the states would meet en banc and review Supreme Court decisions and possibly overrule them.

The idea surfaced for a time, but then disappeared. It would have required a constitutional amendment, and the momentum in Congress wasn't there.

OMG!

That is a Great Idea!~

I have often wondered how to fix the Supreme Court without mess it up even more.

But that may be the answer!