• ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    This is just my personal view but I don’t think we should have one Supreme Court. Every case should get a random assortment of 9 judges drawn from the several circuit courts and even the most minor of conflicts of interest should mean you’re ineligible for the random selection.

    And if the downside of that is we get constant conflicting precedents due to ideological judges, then why have a Supreme Court at all? If it’s Calvinball anyway, just switch to a parliamentary system.

    • sik0fewl@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      This is a much better idea. There should still be term limits, though.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Term limits will require a constitutional amendment. We don’t actually need term limits.

        What we can do instead is remove the fixed size of the court, and impose a fixed rate of appointments to the court. One appointment should be made between 6 and 12 months after the presidential inauguration, then another between 30 and 36 months. No appointments can be made outside these windows. When a justice dies or retires, their seat is not filled.

        We will need a method of quickly replenishing the court in case of disaster, so I would establish a line of succession. If the court falls below 7 members, the senior Chief Judge in the 13 circuit courts is automatically elevated to SCOTUS.

        This line of succession also gives us a means for preventing the Senate from gaming the system: all of the Circuit Chief Judges are pre-confirmed by the Senate to a position that places then in line for the court. If the president appoints someone from the SCOTUS line of succession, they are immediately elevated, without needing to be reconfirmed by the Senate.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      I like your idea, but I think they’d manage to corrupt it somehow. Like picking jury members, they’d want a say over which judges get the case because politics, not because justice or impartiality.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Exactly. Appellants would separately escalate a dozen similar cases, and only proceed with those cases that draw a favorable panel.