I’m not sure it would be a good thing, depending on who is elected POTUS. For example, Obama would have brought four new Justices with him in the ‘08 and ‘12 elections...and four others would have had to step down. If the four that had to step down were the more conservative variety, then that would tilt the SCOTUS too far to the left. Or am I missing something in this scenario?“I would favor having 2 prospective SCOTUS justices run as running mates of a presidential candidate.”
Yes, of course you are right, you are not missing a thing. But what is the alternative?? As matters now stand, a president can score big in SCOTUS nominations, or be completely shut out - it’s completely indefinite. And a president can be unable to get his picks confirmed - be they never so well-trained, experienced, and judicious. Think what a disaster SCOTUS would have been, if Reagan hadn’t had the nominees that he did - even with Sandra Day O’Connor. Suppose it had been Obama getting four nominees out of nine on the bench!! And I am proposing that each justice have a 22 year term. That’s a pretty long time, but lifespans are increasing and Alzheimers’ is a serious threat if you are in your eighties. Increasing the size of the court to 11 softens the impact of the selections of a single president, even a 2-termer.The idea of having the SCOTUS justices committed to before the election is the best I can come up with as a way to soften the ideological nature of the nominees; I would hope that a damaging paper trail of “wise latina” type comments would have to be avoided by a presidential nominee.
Of course, we had a serious case of demagoguery going on in 2008, and you can’t fully protect against that. As it happens the current system wasn’t a disaster recently, but it did get pretty bad in the forties and fifties - but how could it have been otherwise, after the “twenty years of treason” under FDR and Truman?
I just had a thought, though - it’s possible to consider the option that any presidential candidate pulling at least 1/3 of the electoral college vote could have one SCOTUS nominee installed on the court. That way there would be no wild swings on SCOTUS due to presidential elections, and naming those justices in advance would put pressure on the presidential nominees to choose with an eye to getting elected. We could hope that that would mean prudent choices, altho . . .
Anyway, the spirit behind my calculations is the realization that senate ratifications are a zoo. Good men are put through the wringer, and the not-so-good nominees are waved through, if the Senate is in Grubercrat hands. And not-so-good nominees are confirmed even when the Senate is in Republican hands. This “borking” system has to stop.
Good points. And an interesting idea.
And then again, bad rulings should be TAINTED.
But I think that competitive nominations are superior in any case. Two scholars debate, and a venerable chief selected by the majority of state legislators chooses the one he prefers.
The thing about competition is you bring your ‘a-game’. Presidents enjoy a monopoly, and doesn't it ‘kinda show? They recess appoint and the central-power senate just ‘rubber stamps’.
Of course our Founding Fathers were brilliant and an infinite blessing to the Free World, but just maybe this is the better ‘mouse trap’, a new level for republics to ascend. And frankly, this was my ‘simpler compromise version’ of competitive nominations to begin with. It can get even more deliberative and judicious with a few more concepts added in. No need to rush nominations actually, not with other safeguards.
BTW, there would never be a lame duck Chief-o-states to confirm. It was a lame duck which confirmed John Marshall, the ‘power to tax is the power to destroy’ guy if my memory is correct. Marshall was a sour-grapes foil against Jefferson. Very cynical.