The greatest blunder in the Constitution is in how Supreme Courtjudges are appointed and approved

The greatest blunder in the Constitution is in how Supreme Court

judges are appointed and approved

I can't help but wonder: Would the Framers (Framers indeed) still

believe that the president should be the one to appoint candidates to

the Supreme Court? It is doubtful. And who said that judges should

serve for life? There's nothing in the Constitution that says they

serve for life, it says "for good behavior."

Maybe the greatest blunder in the Constitution is in how Supreme Court

judges are appointed and approved. The president should not be the one

to appoint anyone so eventually powerful for life to such a high

office. Judges are nominated for political reasons only and not

because they have exceptional legal acumen. In fact, it is generally

because of their narrow-mindedness on many issues that they are

candidates in the first place. All too often a political hack lawyer

like "Cautious" Clarence Thomas is appointed because he or she is in

tune with the political philosophy of the executive and his gang of

bandits, or because some ethnic or religious element has to be

satisfied . As well, the American people can be the losers when a

hostile Senate rejects a worthy presidential appointee. Would you ask

the president to nominate a surgeon to operate on you if you had a

severe medical condition that required an expert in the field needed

to save your life? Hell no, you would ask other surgeons and

specialists - I hope. The appointment and the voting for judges should

be made by people completely outside of government.

SEE: A Nation in Trouble

The Presidency has been the chief source of danger to the American

people since the very inception of the American Federal republic.

Several states have chosen to make judges, even state Supreme Court

judges, stand for election every so often. Their theory is that the

judiciary, like all other representatives of the people, should have

to answer to the people by getting votes. Several years ago,

California

voters wisely ousted Chief Justice Rose Bird and three other

justices.

Theoretically, a jurist should not be involved in the political

spectrum. Yet, when a president appoints members of the Supreme Court,

it is only reasonable to believe that he or she will appoint people

who reflect his or her view or political agenda. After all, the

president has been voted into office on a platform that the citizens

agree with and therefore the president should do all he can to make

sure that his

personal philosophy is put into place. What better way to do it than

to appoint jurists who agree with him. The problem is that the

president can, at the most, serve for eight years, and Supreme Court

jurists can serve as long as they live. Perhaps we should start all

over by calling for a

Constitutional Convention and create a completely new document.

Since the original document is printed on hemp, let the chimp

president smoke it and we can move on to a meaningful Constitutional

Convention.

"Some men are born great,

Some achieve greatness,

and some have greatness

thrust upon 'em."

--Shakespeare, Twelfth Night

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that

matter"

--- --- Martin Luther King

Both Republicans and Democrats should consider the problems with

justices being appointed by the executive.It is obvious that the court

is a readily perceived pretense

Take Back the Court!

Less than one year from now, the voters will decide the future of the

Supreme Court. The next appointments to the Court will almost

certainly be made by the president elected in November 2008, and

confirmed by a Senate with new members elected in the same cycle. It's

crucial that voters understand that their votes will help determine

the shape of the Court for many years to come. PFAW's new site,

TakeBacktheCourt.org, aims to spread the word that courts matter and

elections matter.

What Kind of Justice Will the Next President Nominate?

The Supreme Court protects the rights that Americans cherish. The next

president could nominate one or more justices to the Supreme Court.

What kind of justices will they be? What kind of country will we live

in? Watch our new video

http://www.takebackthecourt.org/

Beyond politics: Why Supreme Court justices are appointed for life

By Roger Cossack

Law Center Contributing Editor

http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/07/columns/cossack.scotus.07.12/

Also SEE:

Law Professors Debate Reforming the Supreme Court Term limits,

reducing the number of clerks discussed

Friday, April 22, 2005

Durham, N.C. -- The United States Supreme Court was called a

"gerontocracy" at a Duke Law School conference April 9 th, likened to

the leadership cadres of the Chinese Communist Party. But that party

is a step up on the Court, said Northwestern University Law Professor

James Lindgren in defending the charge: Its leaders are required to

retire at 80, while justices serve for life.

"Reforming the Supreme Court?" brought together top constitutional law

and Supreme Court scholars for a spirited discussion of the costs and

benefits of life tenure for justices, and an exploration of possible

alternatives. Organized by law professors Paul Carrington of Duke and

Roger Cramton of Cornell, who have co-authored a statutory proposal to

limit Supreme Court terms, the conference was sponsored by the Program

in Public Law.

Cont'd

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/04/Supreme.html

" The lawgiver, of all beings, most owes the law allegiance. He, of

all men, should behave as though the law compelled him. But it is the

universal weakness of mankind that what we are given to administer we

presently imagine we

own.......On the whole, the common men were fairly content to live

under lord or king or god and obey their bidding. It was safer. It was

easier. All animals-and man is no exception - begin life as

dependents. Most men never shake themselves loose from the desire for

leading and protection. Most men accept such conditions as they are

born to without further question."

--- H.G.Wells, Outline of History