What recommendations would you make in fixing the Supreme Court?

I think it’s about time to divide the Federation into at least two (if not more) regions with their own laws, instead of playing silly games to try to impose one set of laws and leaders on everyone.

As for a SCOTUS-only solution, I’d say probably they should NOT be selected by the POTUS. Maybe a system where all lawyers and judges in the nation make nominations and then narrow down candidates in rounds based on approval ratings rather than votes?

JLeslie’s suggestion on requiring the Senate to act in a timely manner would be a good start.

I find the life term to lend itself to Judicial independence but I would also consider making it easier for the Senate to remove a sitting Justice. Of all the Justices sitting in my adult life, Clarence Thomas has been the biggest waste of seat. He should have been removed 15 years ago.

Considering @Zaku‘s idea of the POTUS not being the nominator, perhaps the House could nominate three candidates to send to the Senate for selection of one.

As mentioned above, the senate having to put a date to hear a nominee within a certain timeframe, I suggest 90 days.

If we limit the time a justice can serve I would go longer than 10 years. More like 15 or 20 I think.

@zenvelo Thanks for the mention. I think justices can be impeached. I just mention it because of what you said about Thomas.

I don’t think that it is broke…so I don’t feel that it needs fixing!!!

Term limits, would be a good start….

Elected supreme court justices. Term limits.

No term limits. Because, like in local elections, nobody knows who they are.
Add more justices. Find a different way to select them so that the Democrats like half, and Republicans like the other half. Truly impartial!

@JLeslie Yes, Justices can be impeached, but under the same general rules as impeaching a Presdient- ⅔rds of the Senate and for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Clarence Thomas should be removed for general non-performance.

.

To clarify.
A POTUS, is only allowed two terms. Really, just one, before their job can be taken away if the people would rather they be replaced.
Why are SCOTUS judges, not vulnerable, to the same?
It seems to be in contradiction, to the logic, of a president having a limit to their power….

^^^^^ @MrGrimm888 Justices don’t create policy, don’t execute policies or make decisions on how to address an issue. It doesn’t legislate. The SCOTUS is a body for review of enacted laws or lower judicial decisions.

But because it is not up for election or re-appointment, it does not have to issue rulings to placate an electorate, it can focus on what is fair and just rather than popular.

In the 1950s, there was plenty of support from conservatives to throw out the SCOTUS, and “Impeach Earl Warren” billboards were commonplace. If the Supreme Court were term limited, Brown vs Board of Education would have never been established, and the South would still be segregated.

@MrGrimm888 The Supreme Court is somewhat limited by having more than one judge on the court.

You can’t have everything change every time the president changes. That would give the president even more power. The point of the checks and balances is to not give any branch of government much more power than the other.

^It isn’t necessarily political. it’s more of a mindset, that worries me..
Let’s take Roe v Wade, as an example.
There is a legitimate possibility it could be overturned. Under certain circumstances.
That’s an issue….