I guess I have an inherent resistance to processes that ensconce a two party system.
It has a proven track record in the States that have adopted it, including Florida.
I get the practicality of the idea and donât disagree.
But on principle, itâs one more way that the two parties used the state to maintain their dominance. I know the two party system isnât going anywhere but a man can dream.
I understand where you are coming from.
But effectively, BOTH the current method and my proposed method envelope the two party system.
The difference is that my system both forces and rewards the two parties for working together to find quality jurists.
The current system rewards each party for trying their level best, by fair and by foul, to undercut and destroy the reputations of the other parties nominees and to obstruct the other party from making appointments.
Under my system, because the panels would be equally balanced and two thirds majority vote required, both parties would have to work together in good faith and in fact ONLY by working together in good faith could the panels select nominees.
It would fundamentally change the judiciary over a period of time. The Scaliaâs, Brennanâs, RGBâs, Sotomayorâs, Thomasâs, etc, would be replaced by more moderate jurists in the mold of Merrick Garland, Sri Srinivasan, etc. Yes, a few Scaliaâs and RGBâs would get through, but they would be the small minority, with more moderate jurists being the rule.
It would depoliticize the courts and take the Supreme Court off the table as a Presidential election issue, as Presidentâs could only appoint from the choices they are offered.
Was that before or after the 2000 election debacle where the Florida Supreme Court thumbed its nose at the law and ordered recounts in select counties?
The âgood reasonâ the Founders had has been corrupted and made rancid by liberals so I tend to agree that maybe its time to put limits on SC Judges which could end up with lifetime appointments if they pass regularly scheduled Judicial Reviews. In fact it should be mandatory for all Federal Judges to make sure the âletter of the lawâ as outlined in The Constitution is upheld on all rulings. JMO
Anecdotes are not the singular of data. Yes, you can cherry pick Florida Supreme Court jurisprudence.
I could cherry pick a hell of a lot more jurisprudence from the United States Supreme Court.
No method is perfect, but I believe the Missouri Plan is the best of the bunch.
Your projecting is showing.
The question was simple, though not your liking, did Florida adopt the Missouri Plan method before or after the 2000 election? If before, it failed stunningly, if after, well, if it remedies judicial activism, iâm all for it.
Interesting this idea is gaining legs as Democrats see the court possibly turning to the right. Not an ideological epiphany by any chance?
So who do you think should judge the judges? Seems like having another layer of judges just compounds the problem.
Any Court that would say Corporations are people and should have same right like Citizen United ruling has abandoned any semblance of Constitution a long time ago. Why is it that I only see the Left wing of Dem party for most part is only ones who point and yell about corruption from their own party?
It was adopted in the 1970âs after 5 out of 7 elected Justices of the Florida Supreme Court were removed for corruption. Since then, the Florida appellate judiciary has been among the cleanest and most respected in the nation.
One suspect decision out of tens of thousands over the years does NOT constitute failure.
And I should note that Florida appellate Justices and Judges must face retention every 6 years and none has ever failed to be retained by the people and the lowest retention vote has been above 65% in favor of retention. The people of Florida are consistently very happy with the appellate judiciary, as shown by their repeated, overwhelming retention of the Justices and Judges.
That would be the role of congress.
Who do you think make Corporations if not human beings, aka âpeopleâ! Of course âpeopleâ create & work in Corporations. And any campaign finance policy that is good enough for Unions is good enough for Corporations.
Again, Florida and many other States are far out in front of the federal government on this issue. Floridaâs Judicial Qualification Commissions investigate misconduct and disability complaints against State judges and can recommend sanctions up to removal from office. The State Supreme Court has the final say. Trial level judges are elected in Florida and thus have been the focus of nearly all complaints ever made.
The use of Judicial Qualification Commissions to investigate and sanction judges has worked well in Florida and other States were it exists. Impeachment is a clumsy and time consuming process and diverts the legislature from actually doing its regular job. Using commissions is faster, more efficient and gets rid of bad judges in a more expeditious manner.
So if there is no hard having an open supreme courrt seat for 17 years then guess libs shouldnât keep complaining about 1 year for garland
This country was not founded to be run by a small cadre of law school graduates. Sorry.
Sorry. Floridaâs method is superior.
If you are a fan of oligarchy sure.
