The Supreme Court Needs Reformed

With all of the decisions that have come down in recent years, there are many (to include myself) that strongly believe that there needs to be some serious changes in the Supreme Court. In this day of judicial activism, there is no accountability and each Justice knows and understands this. Because of this, they are free to render whatever decisions they want, whether something is constitutional or not. No fear, no regrets.

There are many ways to remedy this, most of which will not be popular with purists and those that benefit from these lousy decisions. But somewhere, some how, somebody must show some intestinal fortitude and correct the errors in the current system. There are two ways this can be done.

1. Reform The Confirmation Process:

Under the current process, the President nominates the candidate and the Senate must confirm or deny. As we are seeing now that Justice O'Connor has retired, the Democrats (the left wing portion) have used the the threat of a filibuster to prevent qualified judges (and other appointees to other positions) from being confirmed. These qualified nominees' only crimes are having a belief system that is at emnity with the leftists' beliefs.

This is a process that is in dire need of reform. Countless wasted hours and countless amounts of taxpayer money is spent for the sole purpose of allowing the minority to hijack the process, with their threats and obstuctionist behaviors. If mainstream Americans pulled this at their places of employment, they would be fired. No company could endure this kind of activity and hope to stay in business for very long.

2. Term Limits:

Currently, Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life. Except in extreme cases when they can be removed for incapacitation or corruption that can result in criminal cases built against them, we are stuck with them until they decide it's time for them to go. There is no accountability, otherwise.

We can do one of two things to remedy this:

A. We can continue the current process of appointment and confirmation (with safeguards against the filibuster threats) for a set term, after which the electorate gets a chance to vote to retain or not to retain, a Justice. This can be done in conjunction with federal elections. If the Justice is retained, no harm, no foul, he/she will continue for the next prescribed term, after which, the Justice will face another vote of confidence or no confidence (after the prescribed term). As long as the people have confidence in a particular Justice, they can continue for a set number of terms or indefinitely. If he/she is not retained, the President will then appoint another candidate and submit him/her for confirmation by the Senate.

OR

B. We can elect him/her outright for a set term, after which he/she must face reelection. This process is not the ideal process, because, (with nine Justices) the campaigning will become endless. The primary process and then the general election will create a system of election overkill.

With the drawbacks of option B so clear, option A seems to be the most reasonable.

This is my thought. Here are some other bloggers' thoughts on this matter:

AlwaysOnWatch

SocialSense

QandO