Either term limit the justices or give each party a turn in picking the new appointments no matter the prez.
Thank you Mitch McConnell for stripping away that rule.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Not so much now that we had Republicans and pandering lying left wing anti-American bottom feeding corrupt ocrats.
(no message)
I would also like to see all Supreme Court appointees actually adhere to their Constitutional responsibility. Unelected activist Supreme Court Justices legislating from the bench is a threat to the Republic.
We usually have 7-9 Justices from the New England the Mid-Atlantic states. That is totally unfair with an activist Court.
Like you, I would like to move back from the activist Court we have. I'm just not sure it is possible. We can try, as you are proposing. Or, we can make an activist Court more representative of the people, with my proposal.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
And institute term limits.
That would remove the fear that anyone would be on the court for 30+ years, and make the fights less panicky.
(no message)
Alternating appointments is unworkable, I think. It would involve an explicit institutionalization of the two party system, I think. Right now, we have only an implicit two party system, as a result of how we elect the president.
I get what you're saying, but this problem is created out of hyper-partisanship. Surrendering to that is completely antithetical to the basis our country was founded upon.
Imagine a real radical 3rd party emerges, they get to pick every 3rd justice?
(no message)
And once again, McConnell et al violated their oath of office by not giving President Obama's nominee (Judge Garland) a hearing.
Nominees should be thoroughly vetted. But, if qualified (which should be a very demanding standard), it would be better for the country if duly qualified nominees received 75 + votes to confirm. Garland would have received 90+.
Not sure it's a violation of the oath though.