Active Now

my2cents
Honey Dew
Spunky
Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » The solution to the SUPREME COURT thingy is embarrassingly SIMPLE! What is it?
RosieG

The solution to the SUPREME COURT thingy is embarrassingly SIMPLE! What is it?

NEW LAW GOES INTO EFFECT IMMEDIATELY


Democrats can only ever appoint CONSERVATIVE judges and Supreme Court Justices
Republicans can only ever appoint LIBERAL judges and Supreme Court Justices


See how simple?


Remember as a kid your mom let you divide things and then let your siblings CHOOSE FIRST? Kinda kept you honest.

Well isn't this the only way to keep them honest?


Posted - April 15, 2021
Tags : None

Responses


  • 6023
    I'm not sure why anyone claims appointing more judges to the Supreme Court is unConstitutional.
    I don't find anything in the Constitution stating how many judges are on the Supreme Court.
    The only limit is due to the Judiciary Act of 1789 - which set the number of judges to SIX.
    This was later changed by the Judiciary Act of 1869 - which updated the number to the current NINE.
    Therefore, we have precedent that it is within the power of Congress to set the number of judges via an act of law.


    What I wonder, is where they will find any new judges ... as there is a shortage of judges throughout the federal court system.

    Now, with that background stated ... here is my answer to your question.
    Let's appoint people at random - same as we do jurors.
    Since it's really the judge's first duty to act as a moderator, I don't see any reason the average citizen couldn't do the job.
      April 15, 2021 8:11 AM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    I gather you didn't like my solution? I love it. What do you object to about it? I'm not being cantankerous or obstreporous or hostile. I thought I really hit on an effective simple achievable solution.

    People at random? OH MY GAWD.

    What is an "average" citizen? One who didn't graduate from high school, eats road kill and loves cock fights and NASCAR? Talk about Russian Roulette OMG Walt. To borrow the famous words of a tennis star..."YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS!"  All of the FOOTOO cheering adoring worshippers and all the hate group insurrectionists are "average" citizens. No screening at all? OMG! Thank you for your reply m'dear. You have more faith in the "average" citizen than I do! :)
      April 15, 2021 8:56 AM MDT
    0

  • 6023
    The main problem I have with your solution is that political parties change over time.
    IE: the Republicans were champions of civil rights, before the Democrats were.
    I guess to get around that, you could require the parties to appoint judges that disagreed with the party.

    Of course, under my proposed system, judges would not be appointed for life.  Again, just like a jury it would be for a limited time.
    In fact, there were some judicial systems that - if a judge was not available - would assign a random citizen (or an "upstanding member of the community") temporarily for a single trial.
      April 15, 2021 11:52 AM MDT
    1