• 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

  • 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

  • Ball Sack Nigger Monkeys

    Fuckk thos ugly nigger lynerzzz a a a a a a aa aa a a a a a a a a a aa aa a a a aa aa a a a a aa a a a aa a a a a a aaaaayeeee aye aye ye aye aye thos whit bread fags will burn

  • Must be elected by popular decision

    Appointing justices allows the president entirely too much control, though indirectly, over the direction this country goes. That direction should be up to the people rather than the government. Under no circumstances can this country maintain its constitutionally and God given rights and freedoms when government appointed officials call the shots

  • Of course, they should be elected. This makes it fair.

    The decission should not be up to one person to appoint the supreeme court members. Could you imagine they all die at once, and all our president's friends are appointed, at the same time? All the president's laws will eventually go to his friends, to re-write the entire constitution. This change will be forever. There are currently no terms. These people rule, forever. Their decissions would be final.

  • Jjhkjh jkhnkjhk jkhkjh

    Ytjytg jhgjhg hjgjhg jhgj jhgj hjgj jh ggjhgj jhg jhgj jhg jhg jhg hg jhg ghjh hjgjh jhgj hg jhg hgj ghjg jhg jhg jhg hjg hjg jhjg hjg hhg hgjh gj hjgj hjg hjg jhg jhg jhg jhg jh gghjgj gjhg jhg jhgjhg jhgyujhgj jhgjygj jhgyjg jhgygjgjh jhgjyjhg jh

  • Elections require money

    Studies show that elected judges, Like all people, Feel beholden to their financial donors. They sentence defendants to greater amounts of prison time in election years to garner donations. They rule favorably for interests aligned with the money they receive. The very concept of justice requires it to be blind -- a Justice elected by corporate money absolutely, Positively cannot be trusted to not vote objectively on a case that aligns with that donor. Given that federal political campaigns are now laced with shadow money, There is no way to tell when conflicts of interest do/don't exist or when recusals ought happen. Even if nothing shady is actually happening, The mere appearance that it COULD undermines the notion of justice in the nation and must be repudiated.

  • I like the Canadian system.

    There should be review. It shouldn't just be the executive's decision. Input must be made from legal experts. Regional representation must also be taken into consideration. The American system is far too partisan. This has crept up into the Supreme Court which has become really partisan. Change is needed in the U.S.

  • No because it brings the political atmosphere into the legal atmosphere.

    If Supreme Court Judges are elected individuals who have interests in certain outcomes judges make will fund their electoral campaign making them more likely to be hired. It rests the decision in the hands of those who are not skilled in legal interpretation. Meanwhile if the Supreme Court is appointed, it reflects the decisions of society because the political that is voted by the people makes the decision.

  • 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

  • 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.

  • Campaign donations lead to corruption

    Judges are supposed to be impartial but that is impossible when they are looking forward to the next election cycle. You need money to win votes and you need to make popular rulings to not lose them. Judgements need to be fair and in accordance with the law. Popularity should have nothing to do with it.

  • No no lol

    Lolollololololllolololololol olol o lol ol ol ol ol olololo lol ol o l o lo o lo lo lo o lo lo ol o l o l o lo lo lo l o l o l ol o o o lo l o o o l o lo l o l no

  • No, I don't think they should be elected.

    If they are elected, they will only be interested in being re-elected, deciding on popular opinion and personal beliefs. Even if by being appointed by the President and Congress means that they are a little politically biased, at least they know they are there to do a job and decide on the consititution, and hopefully not their personal beliefs. However I do believe they should have term limits.

  • Supreme Legal Authority Elected? NO!

    To subject the supreme legal authority to the vote of the uneducated masses is blatantly absurd. The Court is called upon to decide challenging areas of law, that often have minute nuances that are not understood by the general population. Then, because they don't like the decision, they would vote out that judge, without regard to the legal parameters with which the judge must operate? This would ensure that the judges would be more concerned about happy constituents instead of being concerned about rightly dividing the law. The American public is CLUELESS when it comes to legal matters. Ask American's if denying gay marriage was ruled unconstitutional by the Court in 2013. The majority will tell you that the Court's holding in the 2 same-sex marriage cases was that any denial of this was unconstitutional. This is a BLATANTLY inaccurate understanding of the outcome, and frankly, is just wrong. The court held that one case did not have standing to proceed (ask how many American's have any idea what that phrase means), and in the other, it ruled that ONE portion of DOMA was unconstitutional, requiring the federal government to recognize a marriage if a STATE recognized that marriage. The remainder of DOMA remains, no state is required to recognize or institute gay marriage (at least, not according to the 2013 decisions). Yet based on some form of societal shift and based on the whims and fancy of whoever is voting, we should do away with 200+ years of law, and be worried about what is popular? This was the VERY reason the constitution was designed the way it is. Destroying it only crumbles the foundation that made this country what it is, and the consequences will be far reaching.

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