Excellent suggestions. We also need to prevent the Supreme Court from overturning laws that have been voted upon by the people. The judicial system was put into place to enforce the law, not to create it. A few people should not be able to change laws made by many people voting their conscience. States need to be allowed to make the laws that serve their residents best, without a federal court forcing on them laws that don’t suit their way of life. If someone doesn’t like the laws in one state, let them move to a state that reflects their values. That was the purpose of fighting for states rights in the first place.
ReidMcLJuly 9, 2018
I believe that your suggestion about term limits is excellent.
Bipartisan commission for nominees, who will appoint the members? Currently, there are too many RINOs in Congress to believe that there will be a fair representation on that committee. Closed door sessions, that is worse than the bipartisan commission. Way too much mischief is possible
TedJuly 9, 2018
These seem like some good solutions. It seems that both sides of the political ideologies feel they are being disadvantaged and that individual rights have been eroded as it stands now. Perhaps a revised nomination process would help unite us rather than divide us as a country?
Allison BinghamJuly 9, 2018
Interesting article and possible solutions. Personally I am in favor of transparency in governance to the maximum extent possible. I do realize the tradeoffs as you also point out. The idea of have an independent commission, say not unlike the bipartison RED / BLUE scientific committee that is currently reviewing the existing climate change science and will give its recommendations to the president. The activities of the committee would also need to be transparent, esp. in today's climate where all government activities are increasingly viewed with suspicion regardless of political perspective. Thanks for writing this!
Mary Jane FritzenJuly 9, 2018
reasonable solution to present Supreme Court problem
DaveJuly 9, 2018
The only way you're going to get the rancor out of the process is to give the Left what they want.
When they get their way with far Left judges, the process seems to go quite smoothly. When there's a prospect of getting judges who will actually respect the law and the constitution the way they are written, that's when the rancor gets intense.
David ShafferJuly 9, 2018
To assume that a bi-partisan commission, or a set schedule for such nominations will end, or even minimize partisanship and contention in the process, is to deny human nature and the history of partisan politics around the world. There will be at least the current amount of tension and contention in such a commission, and in the Senate once the nomination has been made. To believe otherwise is is just wishful fantasizing.
Comments | Return to Story
ViolaJuly 10, 2018
Excellent suggestions. We also need to prevent the Supreme Court from overturning laws that have been voted upon by the people. The judicial system was put into place to enforce the law, not to create it. A few people should not be able to change laws made by many people voting their conscience. States need to be allowed to make the laws that serve their residents best, without a federal court forcing on them laws that don’t suit their way of life. If someone doesn’t like the laws in one state, let them move to a state that reflects their values. That was the purpose of fighting for states rights in the first place.
ReidMcLJuly 9, 2018
I believe that your suggestion about term limits is excellent. Bipartisan commission for nominees, who will appoint the members? Currently, there are too many RINOs in Congress to believe that there will be a fair representation on that committee. Closed door sessions, that is worse than the bipartisan commission. Way too much mischief is possible
TedJuly 9, 2018
These seem like some good solutions. It seems that both sides of the political ideologies feel they are being disadvantaged and that individual rights have been eroded as it stands now. Perhaps a revised nomination process would help unite us rather than divide us as a country?
Allison BinghamJuly 9, 2018
Interesting article and possible solutions. Personally I am in favor of transparency in governance to the maximum extent possible. I do realize the tradeoffs as you also point out. The idea of have an independent commission, say not unlike the bipartison RED / BLUE scientific committee that is currently reviewing the existing climate change science and will give its recommendations to the president. The activities of the committee would also need to be transparent, esp. in today's climate where all government activities are increasingly viewed with suspicion regardless of political perspective. Thanks for writing this!
Mary Jane FritzenJuly 9, 2018
reasonable solution to present Supreme Court problem
DaveJuly 9, 2018
The only way you're going to get the rancor out of the process is to give the Left what they want. When they get their way with far Left judges, the process seems to go quite smoothly. When there's a prospect of getting judges who will actually respect the law and the constitution the way they are written, that's when the rancor gets intense.
David ShafferJuly 9, 2018
To assume that a bi-partisan commission, or a set schedule for such nominations will end, or even minimize partisanship and contention in the process, is to deny human nature and the history of partisan politics around the world. There will be at least the current amount of tension and contention in such a commission, and in the Senate once the nomination has been made. To believe otherwise is is just wishful fantasizing.
ADD A COMMENT