DUers, please explain something to me ... how come the people who are elected/selected

for the SCOTUS are there for life? Did the people who wrote the US Constitution stipulated that? For instance, in 1991 I saw the debacle with Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill ... was he elected when the Dems did not have a majority in the House/Senate? Given the recent ruling about funding for Politicians during elections, is there anyway some of these judges can be asked to step down? Just curious about how your system works! Thanks.

That's in the constitution. The thinking was, that the SCOTUS would be able to ingnore concerns with elections and what have you. To be fair to the framers, I don't think they imagined a time when we would be so politically divided that it would seep into who gets onto the SCOTUS.

are for life, at least the people selected should at least be bipartisan rather than leaning towards a specific political party. Seems to me that most of the SCOTUS are Republican leaning! That to me is not fair!

past 30 years, we've had Republican presidents with only two breaks in that streak. Only the President is allowed to appoint people to the SCOTUS. Part of the GOP's arrogance problem is that they really do believe they "own" the Presidency. And sadly, by election results, we've let them believe that.

The following poster is right, they can be impeached, just like the president. But there has to be some illegal wrongdoing. You can't throw them off the bench just because you don't agree with their decisions.

That's why it matters so very much who shows up to vote. We need good people on the bench. Not Roberts, not Alito, and not Scalia.

mentioned have got to go but since it is a lifetime appointment how can they be got rid of as they are not serving the interests of the American people?

unless they 1) do something illegal, 2)Die

But they can be balanced out over time with other appointments so that their voice is diluted. If you want them off the court so anxiously, you will just harm your health. We have to do this strategically and over the long term.

To answer your question, yes some Dems voted to approve them, in the spirit of "bipartisanship" God, I really hat that word. :grr: Will the repubs ever reciprocate for us and vote for our nominees? I wouldn't hold my breath.

out about bipartisanship, those people will not ever support him and he needs to say 'fuck the GOP'! Am not sure if he has the authority to not work with them but a lot of Dems are not on his side. JFK had his brother as the pit bull, Obama has no one! How sad is that?

>>>>Given the recent ruling about funding for Politicians during elections, is there anyway some of these judges can be asked to step down? Just curious about how your system works! Thanks.>>>>

My guess is: high crimes and misdemeanors. This was floated by the GOP vs. Justice Douglas in the 70s. Never got traction. ( He hadn't committed any crimes or misdemeanors; they just didn't like him).

The only other methodology ( I know of) is to expand the court as FDR tried to do in the thirties. This would allow more ( and better) members.

It is unlikely to happen. For one thing , the current SCOTUS would have to rule on the constitutionality of such a plan. The constitution ( I believe) is silent on the question of *size* of the court.

But I might also be wrong, the policies in the US are so different!

The only thing worse than a lack of judicial accountability is accountability... elected or removable judges have to please people and rights cannot be secure by pleasing people.

(Since the whole point of rights is that they are supposed to be independent of majoritarian political whim.... the specific content of our Bill of Rights polls poorly and has for my whole life.)

Compare the track record of state supreme courts versus the voters on marriage equality, for instance.

Civil rights are a net winner from life-time appointments. There are hundreds of key decisions that would never have been made by people who had to stand for election or review.

And a fixed term leaves you with people on the bench thinking about their next job.

positions just for job security, what about the oath they took, to paraphrase... be openminded and not judgemental! To be fair in my eyes, these judges should not even be political minded, because if they are, they will never serve the population correctly (for want of a better word).

least they will not be conservative but mostly progressive. Wish Clarence Thomas and the other 4 could wilt away!