If It's Broke, We the People Should Fix It!
@cmoneyspinner (9221)
Austin, Texas
October 5, 2018 8:59am CST
Every once in a while I like to repeat myself.
If you've been following American news then you know that in a few more days we will or we will NOT have a new member judge added to our Supreme Court.
This confirmation process has been one of the liveliest I've ever seen and I saw the hearings for Clarence Thomas.
The nominee is the Honorable Judge Brett Kavanaugh and his defense against allegations of sexual assault that occurred about 30 years ago when he was a teenager is that it's a smear campaign motivated by revenge because Trump got elected blah blah blah.
(Not the defense I would have used if I were defending myself. But I'm not an experienced lawyer or a judge.)
Facebook has a discussion going on about all the SCOTUS hoopla.
( facebook.com/oz.sheri/posts/1863990243690970 )
I appreciate the discussion and comments. They make me think. Someone made a remark about the confirmation hearings being a “national disgrace”. These are my thoughts and questions. I'm repeating what I said on Facebook.
“I always thought the great thing about America was and is, if something is broke “We the People” can fix it. If the confirmation process is a “national disgrace” then maybe we should consider changing the process. While we're at it we might want to look into changing the “background investigation” process as well. Hey! Our laws and procedures aren't written in stone. By comparison to other nations, we're still a country of babies talking baby steps. We might also want to change allowing a judge appointed to the Supreme Court to be a justice for life. A POTUS can't be president for life. Senators can't be in the Senate for life. Why should a judge be in the SCOTUS for life?”
Whether or not Kavanaugh gets confirmed is neither here nor there with me.
The burning question that I would really like answered is the last one.
~ Why should a judge be in the SCOTUS for life?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search "SCOTUS" redirects here. For other uses, see SCOTUS (disambiguation). Supreme Court of the United States Established March 4, 1789; 229 years ago (1789-03-04)[1]Country United StatesLo
6 people like this
4 responses
@xander6464 (40884)
• Wapello, Iowa
5 Oct 18
We used to have that. The Republicans changed the rules to make it a simple majority.
2 people like this
@cmoneyspinner (9221)
• Austin, Texas
6 Oct 18
@xander6464 - Thanks for clarifying. I was kind of confused.
2 people like this
@indexer (4852)
• Leicester, England
5 Oct 18
It's a good question. It is essential that a Supreme Court judge has all his or her wits about them, and that is not always the case with elderly people. A fixed retirement age - even as late as 70 - might be worth thinking about.
It might also be worth taking politics out of the question altogether. That would mean insisting on all judges declaring themselves to politically neutral from the day they become a judge, and for the choice of Supreme Court judges to be taken out of the hands of the incumbent President. Neither should the choice of any non-political officer be subject to a public vote, because that will always make the choice a political one.
1 person likes this
@cmoneyspinner (9221)
• Austin, Texas
5 Oct 18
Oh I had not actually thought about the loss of one's mental faculties as one ages. But I suppose that could play into it also. One could declare themselves "politically neutral" but that declaration would more than likely be A LIE! It's almost impossible for anybody to be politically neutral, especially in the USA. Asking somebody to declare themselves politically neutral? That's almost like asking somebody to give up their religion. 
@everwonderwhy (6697)
•
31 Oct 18
The extremely vetted SCOTUS-for-life, I guess, is there for a good reason since 1789?
1 person likes this
