4 ms·

The Senate doesn’t actually have to vote to confirm a Supreme Court justice. > and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors,

by cwhiz 6y ago

The Senate doesn’t actually have to vote to confirm a Supreme Court justice. > and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court There is nothing except precedent to say the President can’t just directly appoint justices. And then when the appointments are inevitably challenged, who would ultimately rule on it? The Supreme Court. Tah dah. This is how democracy falls apart.

tomjakubowski 6y ago
Proposed patch: in cases like this where all of SCOTUS has an obvious conflict of interest, the decision is made by a single judge who is elected to an N year term by a national popular vote for only this purpose. Democracy saves the day?
- ianai 6y ago
  I think the patch including a general election is good. But I think say every 5 or 10 years a justice is given an approval vote-have it rotate across the bench and one or two per year, not many. I’d they get less than 67% approval then they’re removed until after the next general election-no fillers until then. Give a time lag to let people consider their first choice before the second choice is made.
  - salawat 6y ago
    See, I actually See a lot to be recommended by adopting a much more proactive management of policy makers through a vote of no confidence than this "get in, blank check til next election" system we have. Though I'd still want to timebox the change to the fundamental political process and only affirm it as permanent until say 15 years of it's successful exercise.
Jtsummers 6y ago
"Advice and Consent". I'm pretty sure "consent" is where we get the need for Senate confirmation, and you'd have to strike that word to allow a direct appointment.
- cwhiz 6y ago
  You can lawyer consent to mean a lot of things. Many legal scholars and lawyers argued that the Senate did consent in 2016 when Obama made his nomination. He sent his nomination to the Senate, and they thought about it for 9 months without rejecting, and therefore they consented. It’s way more open to interpretation than you’re suggesting. It has never been challenged.
  - unsignedchar 6y ago
    Yes, it is not hard to imagine how Trump would have interpreted that precedent if the situation were reversed and the Senate was under Democrat control
hajile 6y ago
That word consent means something...
- cwhiz 6y ago
  Like I said, it’s never actually been challenged. Consent can mean a lot of things. For example, if I tell you what I’m going to do, and you don’t say not to do it, did you consent? I could argue yes. You could argue no. This has never been litigated on the subject of a Supreme Court nominee. And my overall point here is that the Supreme Court would decide whether the move was legal. If the court is now stacked, well that’s just tough shit. There is no other immediate remedy except to amend the constitution. Good luck.

by cwhiz 6y ago

tomjakubowski 6y ago

Proposed patch: in cases like this where all of SCOTUS has an obvious conflict of interest, the decision is made by a single judge who is elected to an N year term by a national popular vote for only this purpose. Democracy saves the day?

ianai 6y ago
I think the patch including a general election is good. But I think say every 5 or 10 years a justice is given an approval vote-have it rotate across the bench and one or two per year, not many. I’d they get less than 67% approval then they’re removed until after the next general election-no fillers until then. Give a time lag to let people consider their first choice before the second choice is made.
- salawat 6y ago
  See, I actually See a lot to be recommended by adopting a much more proactive management of policy makers through a vote of no confidence than this "get in, blank check til next election" system we have. Though I'd still want to timebox the change to the fundamental political process and only affirm it as permanent until say 15 years of it's successful exercise.

Jtsummers 6y ago

"Advice and Consent". I'm pretty sure "consent" is where we get the need for Senate confirmation, and you'd have to strike that word to allow a direct appointment.

cwhiz 6y ago
You can lawyer consent to mean a lot of things. Many legal scholars and lawyers argued that the Senate did consent in 2016 when Obama made his nomination. He sent his nomination to the Senate, and they thought about it for 9 months without rejecting, and therefore they consented. It’s way more open to interpretation than you’re suggesting. It has never been challenged.
- unsignedchar 6y ago
  Yes, it is not hard to imagine how Trump would have interpreted that precedent if the situation were reversed and the Senate was under Democrat control

hajile 6y ago

That word consent means something...

cwhiz 6y ago
Like I said, it’s never actually been challenged. Consent can mean a lot of things. For example, if I tell you what I’m going to do, and you don’t say not to do it, did you consent? I could argue yes. You could argue no. This has never been litigated on the subject of a Supreme Court nominee. And my overall point here is that the Supreme Court would decide whether the move was legal. If the court is now stacked, well that’s just tough shit. There is no other immediate remedy except to amend the constitution. Good luck.