Obama STILL might be able to put Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court

American Thinker ^ | 11/14/2016 | Ed Straker

[Alas Babylon!]

Aunt Bee. And Floyd (the barber) told me she had a GREAT fried chicken recipe. Lip smackin’ good!

[Mr.Unique]

Mayberry vs Madison

[N. Theknow]

Was that the decision that denied Andy Taylor a seat on the high court?

Yes. That is the case.

Then he went on to become Sheriff of Mayberry with his Chief of Staff Barney Fife and Press Secretary Floyd "The Barber" Lawson.

[Alberta's Child]

I would love to see the U.S. ditch the Supreme Court as it is now constituted, and replace it with a panel of 50-70 justices who would work in a rotating "bench" using the following process:

If a case is appealed from the circuit court, one panel of the justices (say, five of them) hears the case and decides whether or not the Supreme Court will accept the case. If it does, then the case gets assigned to a group of nine justices selected from the "bench" using the following parameters:

1. Judges will be assigned more or less at random, with a few exceptions listed below.

2. Judges can have their assignments altered for personal reasons, conflicts of interest in a specific case, or to balance their workloads.

3. Any of the judges who heard the initial appeal for a case as I described it above cannot be included among the nine who decide on it.

I think this process would go a long way towards reducing the politicization of the Supreme Court, and would diminish the value and power of a lifetime appointment to the court. It would also add some interesting elements to cases, since we won't have to go years at a time with the same nine people -- some of them very old and in fading health -- rendering decisions of such paramount importance to the nation.