• @FireTower@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    62 years ago

    I feel like this purposal doesn’t tackle the subject appropriately.

    Historically there’s been streaks of one party winning elections (like 1869-1885) this kind of change might end up ensuring the SCOTUS is even more polarized.

    I think an approach more focused on auditing justices to ensure they don’t fall to impropriety would make more sense.

      • @FireTower@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        12 years ago

        To be fair for the most part Scotus judges aren’t really ‘republican’ or ‘democrat’ but are normally grouped based on how they interpret law, with completely different names like ‘originalists’ or ‘textualists’. The idea was them being nonpolitical arbitrers of law. But of course they’re still appointed by presidents who fall into a party who insert bias by selecting someone they like.