Posted on 07/05/2012 10:03:08 AM PDT by privatedrive
The Constitution does not specify the number of justices on the Supreme Court; that decision is left to Congress. I submit that now is the time to increase that number to at least 15. Clearly the current makeup of the SC concentrates too much power to one individual (formerly Kennedy, now Roberts).
In 1861, Congress passed a law fixing the number of SC Justices at 9. The original U.S. Supreme Court had only six Justices; that number has changed several times over the years.
1.Judiciary Act of 1789: Court size 6 2.Judiciary Act of 1801: Court size, 5 3.Repeal Act of 1802: Court size, 6 4.Seventh Circuit Act of 1807: Court size, 7 5.Judiciary Act of 1837: Court size, 9 6.Tenth Circuit Act of 1863: Court size, 10 7.Judicial Circuit Act of 1866: Court size, 7 8.Habeas Corpus Act of 1867: Court size, 8 9.Judiciary Act of 1869: Court size, 9
I believe that now is a good time to increase the number, and thereby reduce the chances of one justice deciding the interpretation of law based on outside influences.
I’m no Mitt fan, but The SC CJ is actually writing Unconstitutional Law! i find it hard to envision a more disgusting scenario with regards to the SC. Right now i would take my chances with mitts picks.
I just want to make sure they are removed for a good reason! Like stupidity!
Removing them for anti-Constitutional rulings should be paramount, but relying on Congress to do so is pointless. You might get 2/3rds to remove a pro-Constitutional judge with a coalition of Democrats and weasel RINOs, but you’ll never get the reverse to remove the opposite.
Perhaps the idea of going to an election for Justices is a sound one. If they refuse to be accountable to the Constitution, they should at least be accountable to the electorate.
Yes. It has.
I think that having Supreme Court Justices nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate is the least bad way to go about it. Elected judges will tend to rule based on opinion polls or on the opinion of campaign contributors, which is not the job of a judge and will bite us in the rear more often than not.
The only modification to the process that I would support is one that was floated a couple of years ago: have Supreme Court appointments be for 18-year periods instead of for life, with the justice slots being staggered so that a justice is named every 2 years. That would give each president two appointments per term, and would eliminate the possibility of a bunch of liberals retiring when the Democrats control the process so that they are replaced with liberals who will sit there for 35 years (if a bunch of liberals resigned, the Democrat president could only nominate replacements for the years remaining in each respective term). It would also reduce the problem of justices serving into senility. (While presidents would be able to nominate a justice to a second 18-year term, they would be unlikely to nominate someone so old that he would be feeble at the end of such additional term.)
But the best thing about having justices serve 18-year terms is that presidents would begin nominating justices who are in their 60s instead of in their 50s (since the 18-year term would eliminate most of the benefits of naming younger justices), which would make it less likely that a nominee’s views would be unknown. Why name a 50-year-old Roberts after only a couple of years as a Circuit judge when there’s a 62-year-old Circuit judge with a proven record who can also serve 18 years? No more stealth nominees.
Of course, such a change would require a constitutional amendment, but I think it’s an idea that can attract support from conservatives and liberals alike; liberals don’t want a Clarence Thomas serving for 40 years any more than we want an Elena Kagan serving for 40 years. Implementation would also be tricky, unless the amendment specified that the justice with the most years of service currently on the Supreme Court would see his term end on a certain date well in the future so as not to affect current justices too much (say, February 1, 2018) and the other current justices seeing their terms end two, four, six, etc. thereafter based on their years of service (with the person who replaces a justice whose term would end in, say, 2024 having his own term end that year even if he’s only been on the Court for a couple of years). I think it could all be worked out.
As for Congress impeaching and removing justices, I agree with DJ that it’s not something on which we can count.
My is that you’re not paying attention. Packing the court is foolish.
What method did the founders put in place to overturn SC decisions?
Congress cannot overturn a Supreme Court decision. If SC finds something unconstitutional, Congress can only AMEND the law.
You really are a PUTZ! in addition to being flaming Stupid!
Do You manage a Gas Station Market? Just askin!
First I think your right that Justices should be at least 60 years old to be on the Supreme Court. I don’t know how Justice Roberts got through the vetting without showing him to be a Weasel. Somebody ought to be reamed for that little mistake. However Justice Ginsburg is getting up there ans has been sick. So this is our chance to nominate a True Conservative like Scalia and Justice Thomas. Then Swizzle stick would be in a corner so to speak!
The Amendment process.
Never gonna happen ever ever ever ever in a million years, you couldn’t get half the Senate let alone 2/3 to remove a bad justice, you gotta stop them from getting on in the first place.
In lieu of that it would be nice if they didn’t serve for life. Forget “term limits” they don’t ever have terms, they are essentially crowned for life. BOOOOOOO.
You're right, but it isn't needed either. Nominate “real deals” like Scalia...AMERICANS that actually...LOVE AMERICA...
“Forget “term limits” they don’t ever have terms, they are essentially crowned for life.”
NO ONE “deserves” a lifetime job, especially a government job.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.