Appoint a Supreme Court Justice before retirement

[dutch508]

Mary in S. Carolina (657 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216165055

Appoint a Supreme Court Justice before retirement

Help me out, I am not an academic or attorney, etc. Why can't President Biden appoint, and Congress vet a Supreme Court Justice now, where in the constitution does it say that we have to wait for a Justice to die or retire. So, when one of the Supremes eventually dies or retires, the new Supreme can step into the position from day one??? Wouldn't that better serve America?

Article II
Section 2
Clause 2
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

 

Star Member Moostache (9,228 posts)

1. What would better serve America and the SCOTUS?

Ending lifetime appointments for one...
De-politicizing the court by naming 15 total justices and having a drawing to see which of the 15 would actively serve prior to each term starting for another.

If the court was limited to 10 year terms, with ONE chance to be renewed via re-confirmation at the pleasure of the sitting president...AND there was no guarantee that any one justice would serve EVERY year, but that 9 of the 15 WOULD serve for a given term, then nonsense like the current Roe challenges would be WAAAAAAY less politicized.

Just my opinion, I have been known to be wrong before...

MarineCombatEngineer (4,882 posts)

2. That would require changing the Constitution.

https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/09/21/why-do-supreme-court-justices-have-lifetime-appointments/

WHY DO SUPREME COURT JUSTICES HAVE LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS?

Appointing someone to the Supreme Court is one of the most important actions a U.S. president can make. That’s because, under the Constitution, Supreme Court justices have lifetime tenure unless they resign, retire, or are removed from office. This is distinct from most other democracies, where high court judges either have mandatory retirement ages or strict term limits.

So, why not in the United States?

Northeastern law professor Michael Meltsner, who specializes in the Supreme Court, said the intent was to insulate justices from partisan politics.

“That was put into the Constitution to preserve the total independence of the judiciary,” said Meltsner, the George J. and Kathleen Waters Matthews Distinguished University Professor of Law. “Once a justice is confirmed and takes a seat on the court, they’re not beholden to anybody.”


Changing or amending the Constitution would require 2/3rds of the Congress to vote in the affirmative and 3/4ths of the States to ratify the change, which just isn't going to happen anytime soon.

Star Member Moostache (9,228 posts)

5. Yeah...therein lies the central problem...

This version of the USA is terminally broken, and if political solutions are truly "impossible"...that leaves a new Constitution and reformed government or BOHICA for life. I will rather see the entire thing burned to the ground and rebuilt from the ashes if necessary, but I refuse to live on my knees and under the thumb of thugs and hateful morons because the current way makes change 'impossible'. The very notion that because the system is broken that we must remain in the system forever is lunacy!

To think otherwise is just navel gazing or Hindu-cow level passivity now.

As currently configured, the United States government has been hijacked from the people and is no longer a representative republic - it is a full-on oligarchy (has been for quite some time in reality) and is rapidly careening towards dictatorship.

When one man - elected to the Senate, by fewer than 300,000 people, from a small, rural state that time forgot - can torpedo necessary reforms and aid to the people (against his own word and professed beliefs), then the government that allows that (and the Constitution that supports it) is WORTHLESS - actually worse than that, it is becoming the ENEMY of freedom and the people, and a convenient cudgel for the proponents of rightwing ideology above all other considerations.

When a stacked and politicized Supreme Court can take away the rights of self-determination (and bodily autonomy) from ALL women, based on the opinions of religious zealots - given life-time appointments by cynical oligarchs to mollify the "base" - then the system and the Constitution are worth less than toilet paper - at least ONE of them can help remove malodorous matter from my arse.

If this cannot be changed because of the restrictions of the Constitution; and its 18th century ideals for a 21st century nation, which is exponentially larger and more complex than the founders EVER envisioned; then it is time to seriously plan for how to replace it - or resign ourselves to life on our knees as slaves to the moneyed interests controlling the puppet show.

 

Claustrum (2,815 posts)

3. What if there is no vacancy for one's term?

Does the "would-be justice" just get revoked? Are you suggesting that the would-be justice stay at home for 4 years to be "ready on day 1 of vacancy"?

I get the worry about replacing a SC justice but this creates much more trouble than needed.

Star Member Moostache (9,228 posts)

6. They could still sit on the court, but they would NOT be deciding votes...

EDIT - sorry, but the courts voting members in this idea would be chosen ANNUALLY for each court term, not for the 10-years that a justice would be on the bench...

The courtroom is PACKED with people who participate but do not decide cases...there is plenty of work to be done without the POWER that comes from a limited, lifetime POLITICAL appointee. The entire judicial system and the framework for the concept of rule of law, one man, one vote and a government of LAWS not MEN is teetering and about to topple right now.

 

Star Member Demsrule86 (56,142 posts)

9. We need Breyer to retire just as we needed Ginsberg to retire...I don't understand why she didn't

he won't either. Did she really believe Trump would nominate someone like her as per her request? I will never understand this. And Breyer should know exactly what will happen if a GOP president appoints his seat as he has lived through it.

 

[67 Rover]

Star Member Demsrule86 (56,142 posts)

9. We need Breyer to retire just as we needed Ginsberg to retire...I don't understand why she didn't

he won't either. Did she really believe Trump would nominate someone like her as per her request? I will never understand this. And Breyer should know exactly what will happen if a GOP president appoints his seat as he has lived through it.

Sorry but Biden is a lame duck squatter so no SJC picks for him right Mitch? 

[Old n Grumpy]

Help me out, I am not an academic or attorney, etc. Why can't President Biden appoint, and Congress vet a Supreme Court Justice now,

Because they are to busy with their smash and grab to destroy the country before getting put back in the minority.

[thundley4]

When one man - elected to the Senate, by fewer than 300,000 people, from a small, rural state that time forgot - can torpedo necessary reforms and aid to the people (against his own word and professed beliefs), then the government that allows that (and the Constitution that supports it) is WORTHLESS - actually worse than that, it is becoming the ENEMY of freedom and the people, and a convenient cudgel for the proponents of rightwing ideology above all other considerations.

This is the big LIE being pushed by Democrats. It was not one senator, but 51 senators, a majority that voted against the Democrat plan to destroy the US.

[SVPete]

When one man - elected to the Senate, by fewer than 300,000 people, from a small, rural state that time forgot - can torpedo necessary reforms and aid to the people ... , then the government that allows that (and the Constitution that supports it) is WORTHLESS - actually worse than that, it is becoming the ENEMY of freedom and the people, and a convenient cudgel for the proponents of rightwing ideology above all other considerations.

The US Constitution was designed to hinder populous states trying to oppress and exploit less populous states. In this case, therefore, the design of the Constitutions is succeeding.

[jukin]

DUchebags are so cute when they think they are smart and clever.

[SVPete]

DUchebags are so cute when they think they are smart and clever.

Delusions of Intelligence intersecting with Delusions of Relevance.

[freedumb2003b]

Delusions of Intelligence intersecting with Delusions of Relevance.

Intersecting with stupidity.