The Pittsburgh Post Gazette has a column discussing an interesting solution to the judicial nomination impasse: let the president nominate several candidates for appointment to the Supreme Court, and have the people vote.
Or, in the same vein, how about this, which might more truly reflect the nature of our current politics: have candidates run in a national election for election to the Supreme Court, and have the Chief Justice nominate the president, with the advice and consent of a special joint committee of the House and Senate….
“let the president nominate several candidates for appointment to the Supreme Court, and have the people vote.”
It does seem to go against the anti-democratic and pro-republican feel of the constitution.
Why not rather have the all Supreme Court decisions have to be approved by the Congress and outlaw all Supreme Court jurisdictions in areas stipulated bythe 9th and 10th amendments.
“Why not rather have the all Supreme Court decisions have to be approved by the Congress and outlaw all Supreme Court jurisdictions in areas stipulated bythe 9th and 10th amendments.”
Why even have 3 branches of govt?
It seems rather radical to make the least popularly-elected branch suddenly the most.
How about disallowing the filibustering of judicial nominees, but requiring 60 votes – what is currently required to end a filibuster – to confirm nominees? Perhaps the final outcome would be the same, but at least senators would have to clearly state that they are voting for or against someone, rather than hiding behind the pomposity and opacity of the filibuster.
Nels, I like that. Brilliant!
I don’t see any reason why
1) the president couldn’t, under the current Constitution, nominate multiple candidates and have the Senate vote amongst them. that is, give the choice to the Senate once the President selects the pool. I say this because the Constitution doesn’t define precisely the term “advise and consent.” This would seem to be incorporate more of the “advise” part – consent is pretty clearly 51%, which wouldn’t change.
2) even if the president couldn’t nominate multiple contingents, why not change the Constitution to so allow it. It would be far more difficult politically for the Senate to reject all members of a panel of, say, three (either that, or the President would have to boldly select three extremists); than it would be one.
Such a system would have an added benefit of adding an element of competition once the pool is selected.