Amend the US Constitution concerning SCOTUS tenure.
This isn’t in legalize, @Safiel would be better at that than I am, but here are the basics:
After a minimum of 20 years of service on the SCOTUS, the senior Associate Justice will face mandatory retirement the year following a Presidential election cycle and each subsequent year which does not contain a Presidential election cycle on June 30th. This will include Associate and Chief Justices. If a new Justice has not been confirmed by October 1st of the same year, then the Chief Justice shall have the discretion of reactivating a retired Justice in accordance with paragraph #2. A Chief Justice cannot face mandatory retirement with less than five years in that role, however the next senior Associate Justice with a minimum of 20 years of service will then be required to retire.
In the event of death, incapacity, voluntary retirement prior to 20 years of service or vacancy, the Chief Justice can provide for temporary reinstatement of a retired Supreme Court Justice in either an Associate Justice or Chief Justice role for a non-renewable period of one year or one term, which ever is greater. Once the period has expired, there is no extension. In the event of death or incapacity of the Chief Justice, the senior Associate Justice becomes the Chief pending Senate consent of a new nominee. Requests for reinstatement must be made in the reverse order of retirement with the most recent retiree being solicited first. If that individual declines the request, the next most recent retiree is solicited. In the event there are no retired Justices available or non accept reinstatement, the court will revert to rules pertaining to an even number of Justices. The reinstatement of a temporary Justice ends when the incapacity or vacancy ends.
The Senate is required to advise and consent on Presidential nominations to the Supreme Court, if after 120 days from the official date of nomination there has not been a confirmation vote made available to the Senate at large, then the nominee will be deemed consented to by the Senate and confirmed.
.
.
.
.
Just my thoughts, these and $5.00 will get you a coffee at a Starbucks.
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS
I like to play a game called minecraft. Youtube has a bunch of video on how to play the game, and I watch a ton of them. Youtube also has a lot of videos about how the game could be improved by the game makers, but I usually avoid them because I don’t think the game makers will change the game, and I like to play the game as it is.
I skimmed your thread and it has a lot of words and made me think. It was like homework or something. It also seems like Rs and Ds would need to agree on stuff, and they can’t agree on a solution even though both sides say they must do something to help families suffering through the pandemic.
I hope you won’t find it disrespectful of your efforts, when I say I spent little time contemplating it. I’m just a lazy guy. I did give it a like, and I like a lot of your other posts.
who would give an unelected black robed tyrant that kind of power? and definitely ■■■■ no on the non confirmation-confirmation. the senate not taking up a confirmation is advice. find another nominee
FDR tried to force a change in the SCOTUS back in 39’ by trying to force retirements on the Justices didn’t go over to well. Other than adding another layer of red tape, your idea doesn’t solve any perceived problem.
Anything that would alter the Constitution of the US…gives me shivers just thinking of allowing crooked politicians that opportunity. I don’t trust them from either side of the aisle…period.
Label it as you choose but I tend to call it…the lessor of the evils. IMO…you’re being naive to the negative possibilities IF…you opened the Constitution for an Amendment…cuz…you are a very nice person.
complete ■■■■■■■■■ any 51 senators could have forced a vote. they didn’t. because 51 senators supported mcconnels position and gave their advice by supporting it
"On April 6, 2017, the Senate reinterpreted Rule XXII in order to allow cloture to be invoked on nominations to the Supreme Court by a majority of Senators voting. "
The Garland nomination was in 2016, prior to that (IIRC) it took 60 votes.
wrong idea. had nothing to do with cloture. by senate rules you only need 51 votes to force an issue onto the floor, then cloture becomes an issue. its not used much anymore because cloture makes it irrelevant as anything but a statement, but the rule allows it. when did 51 senators vote to do so? when did 51 senators show they did not support mcconnels position by voting to bring the matter to the floor?
mcconnel could not stop the vote. the only way he could successfully not bring up the nomination is if 51 senators supported him not doing so. if 51 senators were opposed to his method of advising they could force the issue. they did not. because there were 51 senators who supported it.
Here would be my idea. Like your OP would require a constitutional amendment.
A non-partisan commission is formed to screen ALL circuit and above judges. Prospective judges will be based on their knowledge of: Constitutional law, original intent, and constitutional knowledge. The commission will keep a confidential list that is updated every six months.
This commission will forward 5 qualified names to the president. President must pick from the list. That name will be forwarded to the senate, that will have 30 days to reject by 2/3 vote. If not rejected, or voted on in 30 days, they will be sworn in.
Any lawmaker who tries to influence the commission SHALL be removed from office, and be barred from holding any future elected, or appointed office.
No justice shall be appointed before their 30th birthday.
Justices SHALL retire upon the end of the session prior to their 70th birthday.
When deciding a case, justices must first look within the four corners of the document. If not clear, the second place they must look is the intent of those that drafted the constitution or amendment. Third to case law history.
When issuing an injunction against a law, regulation, or executive order, the court MUST specify the article:section/amendment it violates. Upon overturning a law/regulation/EO, the justices MUST specify the article;section/amendment that was violated, using section 6 above in determining.
I have only one real issue with the court. It involves several things and its about the way they construct opinions.
If the court decides a law or action of the executive is unconstitutional, say so, say why, and STOP. The courts opinion on how to remedy the law or action is irrelevant. They are not the executive and they do not supervise the executive. Neither do they exist to instruct the Congress on how to write a law.
Laws which do not specify severability are NOT severable. The court has no authority to amend the law. If part of it is no good, it is entirely no good.
The court should recognize that if the Congress fails to pass legislation, it is their intent not to have it and not the courts place to insert their own opinion in the place of the legislative. Any case arising from that falls to the 10th and is a state issue. The court needs to recognize the limits of its own power.
Flush Twice 
Flush Twice 