Amazon.com Widgets
  • President or Senate should not decide

    I don't like the idea of letting our President or Senate decide who should be on the supreme court, with agendas. We should vote and let the winners get picked. That way our interest are more vested and not for the bigwigs. The idea of Trump installing extremely conservative Judges, is really scary.

  • Power to the People

    Now that we live in a technology advanced age it would not be necessary for only the "elite" to pick who would be a supreme court justice. Voting directly for Supreme Court Justices would shift the balance of power more directly to the people. For example a Republican President could pick a Conservative judge but because they weren't elected they would be a lame duck for 20-something years in a more Liberal leaning society.

  • They should be elected but without drastic changes

    I believe the people should be able to vote in new Supreme Court Justices, however I don't believe they should have term limits, they can keep their life sentences. If we were able to vote the Justices into the Supreme Court it would help prevent either a Republican or Democratic Majority Senate and president from placing who they want and allow the people more of a say.

  • Fefwfwefwefwef 2wefwefwefwfwefwef wfe we

    Wef wef wef 2wf wef wef we wef wef wef wef wef fw wef wef we wef wef wef wfed few wef uiwe fuhwef uiwehf uiw hfuiwefhiwfhdiuwfhiwefi hf hn hcncn n n n n n n nn n n n n n n n n n n n n n

  • Fefwfwefwefwef 2wefwefwefwfwefwef wfe we

    Wef wef wef 2wf wef wef we wef wef wef wef wef fw wef wef we wef wef wef wfed few wef uiwe fuhwef uiwehf uiw hfuiwefhiwfhdiuwfhiwefi hf hn hcncn n n n n n n nn n n n n n n n n n n n n n

  • Fefwfwefwefwef 2wefwefwefwfwefwef wfe we

    Wef wef wef 2wf wef wef we wef wef wef wef wef fw wef wef we wef wef wef wfed few wef uiwe fuhwef uiwehf uiw hfuiwefhiwfhdiuwfhiwefi hf hn hcncn n n n n n n nn n n n n n n n n n n n n n

  • Fefwfwefwefwef 2wefwefwefwfwefwef wfe we

    Wef wef wef 2wf wef wef we wef wef wef wef wef fw wef wef we wef wef wef wfed few wef uiwe fuhwef uiwehf uiw hfuiwefhiwfhdiuwfhiwefi hf hn hcncn n n n n n n nn n n n n n n n n n n n n n

  • Fefwfwefwefwef 2wefwefwefwfwefwef wfe we

    Wef wef wef 2wf wef wef we wef wef wef wef wef fw wef wef we wef wef wef wfed few wef uiwe fuhwef uiwehf uiw hfuiwefhiwfhdiuwfhiwefi hf hn hcncn n n n n n n nn n n n n n n n n n n n n n

  • They defend the constitution

    It has become evident to me that we should elect Justices from now on as evident to current events in the news. For one, it's obvious that congress refuses to approve anyone Obama sends in, placing a year's worth of Justice work in limbo. Not to mention, the constitution is made for the benefit of us, and the Justices defend that, so, we should decide whose's defending our rights, not the establishment.

  • Popular national election

    No accountability, they are making laws when it is the congress' job, no matter their political leaning no accountability, health even doesn't matter,. They must be neutral in their political leaning. They should recuse themselves when, like the tow female judges should have done by preforming gay marriages before they make the same sex law for all the states. It should hae been a state matter or a law made by congress. Not the Supreme court that was already biased

  • Yes, Its only fair...

    I mean the Executive Branch and Judiciary Branch is almost all elected... So it would only make sense for the Judiciary Branch to be elected to. When you think about it, it's actually fair for the moment because the President gets to elect these people and then congress must approve of them, so he isn't getting too much political power or advantage

  • No, accountability would sway voting.

    No, the Supreme Court should not be elected, because the founding fathers thought that it was very important to have one branch of the government not be beholden to the whims of popular culture. If a Justice has to stand for reelection, they will be more likely to vote how the people want him or her too, rather than what they think the constitution really says.

  • No, that would lead to way too many negative changes

    The supreme court acts as one of the checks and balances for the executive branch. The fact that the justices involved get appointed by the president and grilled by the house and Senate means that they are (hopefully) vetted before they take this important post. An elected official has the chance of simply being the guy or gal with the most money. We have our say in who gets appointed by voting for the president and representatives. We then trust their judgement in other matters, and if they do us wrong we can vote them out. The Justices should be grilled as much as possible, but the idea that they may be subject to whims of voting populace and advertisements makes me sick.

  • No, the Supreme Court should not be elected.

    The Supreme Court is supposed to be above party politics and a more pure branch of the government so that the decisions they make are not biased. The problem we have is that because they are appointed party politics do decide who gets into the Supreme Court anyway, and because there are not term limits on their positions they can end up being stacked in one direction.

  • A change needs to be made, but this isn't it

    The core problem with the U.S. Supreme Court right now is that it has turned into an entirely partisan body which pushes the agenda of the party of the president who nominated them. A president will always nominate someone that mostly agrees with him and will help his party succeed. The Supreme Court doesn't interpret the Constitution as-is anymore - they take whatever liberties they feel they need to ensure their party's success. This completely goes against the system that the Founding Fathers envisioned. It's stupid. Really stupid. Therefore, the Supreme Court, which is not supposed to be a partisan body, needs to be reformed. Unfortunately, public elections are not the answer. Many states have their State Supreme Court elected by the public to terms of varying degrees, but every one of those races turns into something partisan even though there's no D or R after each candidate's name. It turns into a war of endorsements from both sides, making it clear to sheeple who they should vote for. As this country's independent mind is withering away, this problem would carry over to a national level should the U.S. Supreme Court be elected by the public. The current system is already problematic as the president picks a friend and Congress typically confirms it without a hitch. Ideally, it should work in the reverse way: Congress should discuss who would be an ideal candidate and present a nominee to the president, who would confirm or reject them. Much like a bill being passed into law, Congress can "veto the veto" with a 2/3rds vote in the Senate. Treating Supreme Court nominees the same as bills could allow for partisan cooperation in Congress and would ensure that the person nominated appeals to both sides in various ways. This would give us a more moderate court that would, hopefully, interpret the Constitution as-is instead of making a decision, then justifying it however possible.

  • McCain b b b

    Duddididjdud b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b

  • McCain b b b

    Duddididjdud b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b

  • Fefwfwefwefwef 2wefwefwefwfwefwef wfe we

    Wef wef wef 2wf wef wef we wef wef wef wef wef fw wef wef we wef wef wef wfed few wef uiwe fuhwef uiwehf uiw hfuiwefhiwfhdiuwfhiwefi hf hn hcncn n n n n n n nn n n n n n n n n n n n n n

  • No, it would become a popularity contest

    Being charismatic, attractive, etc would be what many people would only see. Look at Trump as an example. A Supreme Court justice should be unbaised and look at the law without emotion. And voter don't always vote for the best candiate but the one they think is funny, cute, etc.

  • There is no need to vote on the Justices

    If the justices were elected instead of appointed it would become more of a popularity contest rather than a search for justice. Common people do not know what to look for in a Supreme Court justice so why should they get a say in the decision. People get to vote on the president who then appoints the justices so in this case the president is a delegate for the people.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.