• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would You Support this Amendment?

Would you support an Amendment that makes Supreme Court justices elected?

  • Yes, they should be elected by the PEOPLE.

    Votes: 3 6.4%
  • Yes, but they should be elected by CONGRESS

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, by the PEOPLE and they should be subject to TERM LIMITS.

    Votes: 1 2.1%
  • Yes, by the CONGRESS and they should be subject to TERM LIMITS

    Votes: 2 4.3%
  • No, the current system is fine.

    Votes: 41 87.2%

  • Total voters
    47

RJApple

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Messages
111
Reaction score
102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Would you support an Amendment to the US Constitution that makes Supreme Court justices elected officials, rather than appointed ones? Should they be elected directly by the people, or by Congress? Please, post the reasoning behind your answer.

Personally, I can see two sides of this argument. On one hand, the Court has not done too well with its powers of interpretation recently, as is exemplified by the same-sex marriage ruling, in which they decided that marriage laws were not up to the states, despite the fact that marriage is not even mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore, as many recent appointees don't seem to understand how to properly interpret our nation's foundational document, perhaps We The People should take over and elect the justices. However, given that popular sentiment is moving ever-further to the left, there is a strong chance that such a measure would only make the situation worse. And, besides, do we need to subject the population to yet another type of election season? ;) Perhaps this problem might be avoided by having them elected by the Congress?
 
Last edited:

Anagram

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
8,858
Reaction score
5,411
Location
St. Louis MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Would you support an Amendment to the US Constitution that makes Supreme Court justices elected officials, rather than appointed ones? Should they be elected directly by the people, or by Congress? Please, post the reasoning behind your answer.

Personally, I can see two sides of this argument. On one hand, the Court has not done too well with its powers of interpretation recently, as is exemplified by the same-sex marriage ruling, in which they decided that marriage laws were not up to the states, despite the fact that marriage is not even mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore, as many recent appointees don't seem to understand how to properly interpret our nation's foundational document, perhaps We The People should take over and elect the justices. However, given that popular sentiment is moving ever-further to the left, there is a strong chance that such a measure would only make the situation worse. And, besides, do we need to subject the population to yet another type of election season? ;) Perhaps this problem might be avoided by having them elected by the Congress?4

I would absolutely not support this. Our Supreme Court justices aren't perfect, something I think everyone can agree with. But the last thing I want is to have them elected by the people, or by proxy through congress. Judges should be unconcerned with popular opinion and the law should not change on the people's whims.
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
13,307
Reaction score
7,556
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
No way should we have elected SCOTUS justices

 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,126
Reaction score
21,195
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
NO! This has been raised before.

Elected officials are beholden to the electorate. As already demonstrated in differing States, (just look at any where pro-life or anti-gay rights issues come before them) elected judges pander to those who have the power to re-elect them.

Appointed judges are immune to politics once appointed. They can rule on the merits of the case rather than worry about getting re-elected.
 

SDET

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2015
Messages
7,802
Reaction score
1,608
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Since people have a greater life expectancy, I support the current system with a term limit, maybe 20 years.
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,230
Reaction score
14,236
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The current system needs to change. Purely partisan appointments by the president for life-long term appointments to the highest court in the land needs to stop. The branch of government that is to hold the government accountable is chosen by the government and has 0 accountability to the people.
 

Hari Seldon

Stable Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2014
Messages
9,476
Reaction score
6,258
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Would you support an Amendment to the US Constitution that makes Supreme Court justices elected officials, rather than appointed ones? Should they be elected directly by the people, or by Congress? Please, post the reasoning behind your answer.

Personally, I can see two sides of this argument. On one hand, the Court has not done too well with its powers of interpretation recently, as is exemplified by the same-sex marriage ruling, in which they decided that marriage laws were not up to the states, despite the fact that marriage is not even mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore, as many recent appointees don't seem to understand how to properly interpret our nation's foundational document, perhaps We The People should take over and elect the justices. However, given that popular sentiment is moving ever-further to the left, there is a strong chance that such a measure would only make the situation worse. And, besides, do we need to subject the population to yet another type of election season? ;) Perhaps this problem might be avoided by having them elected by the Congress?

So Loving v Virginia was decided incorrectly?
 

Carjosse

Sit Nomine Digna
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
14,512
Reaction score
6,238
Location
Montreal, QC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Judges of any kind should not be elected.
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,769
Reaction score
11,835
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Would you support an Amendment to the US Constitution that makes Supreme Court justices elected officials, rather than appointed ones? Should they be elected directly by the people, or by Congress? Please, post the reasoning behind your answer.

Personally, I can see two sides of this argument. On one hand, the Court has not done too well with its powers of interpretation recently, as is exemplified by the same-sex marriage ruling, in which they decided that marriage laws were not up to the states, despite the fact that marriage is not even mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore, as many recent appointees don't seem to understand how to properly interpret our nation's foundational document, perhaps We The People should take over and elect the justices. However, given that popular sentiment is moving ever-further to the left, there is a strong chance that such a measure would only make the situation worse. And, besides, do we need to subject the population to yet another type of election season? ;) Perhaps this problem might be avoided by having them elected by the Congress?

I am happy with them being nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate - BUT - I would be very much in favor of a constitutional amendment that made it mandatory that judges at all levels and the state and federal Supreme Court would be limited to strict interpretation of the letter and intent of the existing law within the letter and intent of the Constitution and could make no ruling extraneous to the existing law. And where the Constitution and/or the law is silent, then so is the court.

When unelected justices are given power to make law or interpret it as they think it should be, we have an oligarchy and no longer have a government of the people and by the people as the Constitution intended.
 

roguenuke

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
49,622
Reaction score
17,783
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I am happy with them being nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate - BUT - I would be very much in favor of a constitutional amendment that made it mandatory that judges at all levels and the state and federal Supreme Court would be limited to strict interpretation of the letter and intent of the existing law within the letter and intent of the Constitution and could make no ruling extraneous to the existing law. And where the Constitution and/or the law is silent, then so is the court.

When unelected justices are given power to make law or interpret it as they think it should be, we have an oligarchy and no longer have a government of the people and by the people as the Constitution intended.

No. Because we don't live in the 1700s or 1800s.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The supreme court has been out of control from the beginning. I honestly think the entire thing needs to be thrown out and replaced.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
No. Because we don't live in the 1700s or 1800s.

How does that sentence even make sense? The law is the law, not whatever you want it to be. If the words on the paper can mean whatever we want them to mean then we might as well not have a Constitution at all.
 

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Would you support an Amendment to the US Constitution that makes Supreme Court justices elected officials, rather than appointed ones? Should they be elected directly by the people, or by Congress? Please, post the reasoning behind your answer.

Personally, I can see two sides of this argument. On one hand, the Court has not done too well with its powers of interpretation recently, as is exemplified by the same-sex marriage ruling, in which they decided that marriage laws were not up to the states, despite the fact that marriage is not even mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore, as many recent appointees don't seem to understand how to properly interpret our nation's foundational document, perhaps We The People should take over and elect the justices. However, given that popular sentiment is moving ever-further to the left, there is a strong chance that such a measure would only make the situation worse. And, besides, do we need to subject the population to yet another type of election season? ;) Perhaps this problem might be avoided by having them elected by the Congress?

That's a terrible idea. Democracy tends to the left, so we need as little of it as possible.
 

azgreg

Chicks dig the long ball
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
23,719
Reaction score
20,731
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The supreme court has been out of control from the beginning. I honestly think the entire thing needs to be thrown out and replaced.

With what?
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,769
Reaction score
11,835
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
The supreme court has been out of control from the beginning. I honestly think the entire thing needs to be thrown out and replaced.

But it could be fixed by limiting judges and justices at all levels to strict interpretation of the existing letter and intent of the law instead of allowing them to put their own interpretation and spin on it and even rewrite it to be what they think it should be. The Constitution intended the government to be of and by the people, and therefore only the people's elected representatives were given authority to write and pass laws. To allow the court or the President to do that turns the Constitution on its head just as it does when the federal government exceeds the authority the Constitution was intended to limit.
 

Grand Mal

bas air son Eachin
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
38,495
Reaction score
20,440
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Would you support an Amendment to the US Constitution that makes Supreme Court justices elected officials, rather than appointed ones? Should they be elected directly by the people, or by Congress? Please, post the reasoning behind your answer.

Personally, I can see two sides of this argument. On one hand, the Court has not done too well with its powers of interpretation recently, as is exemplified by the same-sex marriage ruling, in which they decided that marriage laws were not up to the states, despite the fact that marriage is not even mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore, as many recent appointees don't seem to understand how to properly interpret our nation's foundational document, perhaps We The People should take over and elect the justices. However, given that popular sentiment is moving ever-further to the left, there is a strong chance that such a measure would only make the situation worse. And, besides, do we need to subject the population to yet another type of election season? ;) Perhaps this problem might be avoided by having them elected by the Congress?

Electing judges is a stupid concept. Do you want judges to make decisions based on whether they'll get them re-elected? It's fundamentally wrong- I know, I know, back in the day Americans elected judges and you've carried the tradition forward but it's a really dumb way to get judges. I mean, it's like electing militia officers..., oh, wait a minute...
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,126
Reaction score
21,195
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I am happy with them being nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate - BUT - I would be very much in favor of a constitutional amendment that made it mandatory that judges at all levels and the state and federal Supreme Court would be limited to strict interpretation of the letter and intent of the existing law within the letter and intent of the Constitution and could make no ruling extraneous to the existing law. And where the Constitution and/or the law is silent, then so is the court.

Not how our system of checks and balances under separation of powers works. In our country federal and state courts are able to review and declare the constitutionality of legislation brought before a court with jurisdiction. (A Massachusetts law cannot be reviewed by a court in Maine, although any Massachusetts State Court and a Federal Court in the 1st Judicial District can). This was established as U.S. doctrine in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

When unelected justices are given power to make law or interpret it as they think it should be, we have an oligarchy and no longer have a government of the people and by the people as the Constitution intended.

Actually that defines a society under either a common law legal system, or a separation of powers system like ours. For example: The U.K. has a common law system allowing courts to make law through legal decisions, but Parliament also makes law through statutes. On the other hand an oligarchy would be a government directly run by a small cabal or family. If it exists here in the USA it would be the 60 American Billionaires who own our Congress.
 
Last edited:

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
40,397
Reaction score
15,308
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I vote "no" on elected judges. I think appointed judges that are approved by state legislatures are probably better vetted and qualified than most elected judges ...and I also like the idea of a mandatory retirement age of 75 instead of term limits.
 

Exquisitor

Educator
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2014
Messages
6,437
Reaction score
894
Location
UP of Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The supreme court has been out of control from the beginning. I honestly think the entire thing needs to be thrown out and replaced.

Would you support an Amendment to the US Constitution that makes Supreme Court justices elected officials, rather than appointed ones? Should they be elected directly by the people, or by Congress? Please, post the reasoning behind your answer.

Personally, I can see two sides of this argument. On one hand, the Court has not done too well with its powers of interpretation recently, as is exemplified by the same-sex marriage ruling, in which they decided that marriage laws were not up to the states, despite the fact that marriage is not even mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore, as many recent appointees don't seem to understand how to properly interpret our nation's foundational document, perhaps We The People should take over and elect the justices. However, given that popular sentiment is moving ever-further to the left, there is a strong chance that such a measure would only make the situation worse. And, besides, do we need to subject the population to yet another type of election season? ;) Perhaps this problem might be avoided by having them elected by the Congress?

Just when the Democrats get up to bat you Republicans want to change venue.
 

Sherman123

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
7,774
Reaction score
3,791
Location
Northeast US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Would you support an Amendment to the US Constitution that makes Supreme Court justices elected officials, rather than appointed ones? Should they be elected directly by the people, or by Congress? Please, post the reasoning behind your answer.

Personally, I can see two sides of this argument. On one hand, the Court has not done too well with its powers of interpretation recently, as is exemplified by the same-sex marriage ruling, in which they decided that marriage laws were not up to the states, despite the fact that marriage is not even mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore, as many recent appointees don't seem to understand how to properly interpret our nation's foundational document, perhaps We The People should take over and elect the justices. However, given that popular sentiment is moving ever-further to the left, there is a strong chance that such a measure would only make the situation worse. And, besides, do we need to subject the population to yet another type of election season? ;) Perhaps this problem might be avoided by having them elected by the Congress?

Oh good god no. Though I'm open to being persuaded that we should expand the number of justices on the court (say from nine to twelve) in order to increase the ideological diversity therein.
 

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
26,464
Reaction score
6,653
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Would you support an Amendment to the US Constitution that makes Supreme Court justices elected officials, rather than appointed ones? Should they be elected directly by the people, or by Congress? Please, post the reasoning behind your answer.

Personally, I can see two sides of this argument. On one hand, the Court has not done too well with its powers of interpretation recently, as is exemplified by the same-sex marriage ruling, in which they decided that marriage laws were not up to the states, despite the fact that marriage is not even mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore, as many recent appointees don't seem to understand how to properly interpret our nation's foundational document, perhaps We The People should take over and elect the justices. However, given that popular sentiment is moving ever-further to the left, there is a strong chance that such a measure would only make the situation worse. And, besides, do we need to subject the population to yet another type of election season? ;) Perhaps this problem might be avoided by having them elected by the Congress?
Personally, I'm of the opinion that no judges, anywhere, should be elected.

Unless somehow you can set up an election system for judges that:
Does not allow them to accept any campaign donations, to eliminate that conflict of interest. Public funding of campaign necessary, likely.
Does not allow them to campaign except in carefully structured and restricted ways, to eliminate conflict of interest involved in trying to convince people to vote for you (an extreme example would be "I'll rule your way if you help me get elected".)
And somehow prevents or greatly mitigates any other conflicts of interest, while at the same time allowing the election of the best judges for the position...
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Would you support an Amendment to the US Constitution that makes Supreme Court justices elected officials, rather than appointed ones? Should they be elected directly by the people, or by Congress? Please, post the reasoning behind your answer.

Personally, I can see two sides of this argument. On one hand, the Court has not done too well with its powers of interpretation recently, as is exemplified by the same-sex marriage ruling, in which they decided that marriage laws were not up to the states, despite the fact that marriage is not even mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore, as many recent appointees don't seem to understand how to properly interpret our nation's foundational document, perhaps We The People should take over and elect the justices. However, given that popular sentiment is moving ever-further to the left, there is a strong chance that such a measure would only make the situation worse. And, besides, do we need to subject the population to yet another type of election season? ;) Perhaps this problem might be avoided by having them elected by the Congress?

You're not the first person to suggest this. You definitely won't be the last. Funny thing about this type of suggestion is that it only shows up when SCOTUS makes a ruling that someone doesn't agree with and they invariably use it as an example of why they think this should be a possibility worth considering.

I don't always agree with SCOTUS rulings. And I've got a feeling that I'm going to hate em even more if a pro-gun control judge gets put on the SCOTUS bench. But I will NEVER support electing SCOTUS judges. That puts every ruling that they make as a popularity contest that will inevitably make it to where Mob Rules. No thank you.

As an aside regarding your example. Marriage has been considered a fundamental right of the people for far longer than SSM was even thought of and it has several court decisions upholding that it is a fundamental Right. Like any other Right the states may infringe on that right to a certain degree. But they cannot ban it outright to a certain group of people unless they can show a valid substantial reason to do so. And before you use the slippery slope fallacy regarding pedophiles and marrying animals....Pedophilia harms children and animals cannot give consent. Both of those are valid reasons to deny those types of marriages and will never be enacted. SSM hurts no one and there is adult consent.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Just when the Democrats get up to bat you Republicans want to change venue.

Oh just stop the partisan claptrap. Pretty much everyone in this thread is disagreeing with the OP, including those that consider themselves conservative/republican. Hell, even Paleocon is disagreeing with the OP and agreeing with everyone else. That alone should tell you something.
 

Gaztopian

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
1,476
Reaction score
481
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
You might as well abolish the judiciary and merge it with the legislative if you're going to subject it to the same whimsy of popular vote. Isn't bad enough that we have jury justice?
 
Top Bottom