I'd be interested in understanding how you'd put together and maintain long-term said "bipartisan or nonpartisan system". I agree the current system is flawed (FTR I vehemently disagreed on how McConnell handled Garland's nomination), but I'd like to believe that the initial reasoning of the FF for letting Executive and Legislative branches decide on the Judicial was to help keep that system of checks and balances. If nothing else, both parties and both branches have long since learned how to game the system to their advantage.
It still would, it would just be filled with judges who were chosen because their views aligned with those of the “commission” that appointed them rather than ones who were chosen because their views aligned with the President who nominated and/or the Senate who confirmed. A group of people who have no views on anything is a fantasy. Even putting politics aside, people have different views on the proper way to interpret statutory and constitutional language and what relevant considerations are - and you’re much less likely to consider someone who has different views on those questions than you a “good judge” worthy of being on the Supreme Court.
It absolutely is the Constitution. The FF wanted a "union" of the States, but also wanted it to be severely limited in scope. Hence the calling out of specifically enumerated powers of the Federal.
As @Gatorlawyer said, it's not random. McConnell left a seat open for nearly a year so that Trump could make the appointment instead of Obama. Then he rushed another through while his party was in the process of losing an election. And for all three Trump appointments, McConnell eliminated the filibuster, which allowed him to confirm more extreme judges with a bare majority of votes. Legal moves, to be sure, but nonetheless destabilizing and contrary to previously-existing norms. Similar, for that matter, to SCOTUS itself recently dispensing of long-standing precedent to achieve the results that they want. Having 1 appointment per term is a decent idea, among others.
The Constitution was written in response to the problems of the Articles of Confederation, which provided the federal government with far too few capabilities according to the Federalists. Those that wanted a very limited in scope government opposed the Constitution and favored remaining with the Articles of Confederation.
That assumes the "commission" will be static or have singular views. I'm sure it'll result in some ideologues, which is natural. But it won't be on a partisan basis, and it'll also result in a lot more reasonable judges who aren't there solely to be loyal to their party. The point isn't to find people who have no views on anything. It's for people's partisan views not to dictate whether they get a judgeship. Isn't y'all's side always talking about a meritocracy? This would be far closer to that than the current system.
Did McConnell game the system? Abso-freaking-lutely he did. And as I said before, I completely disagreed with how the Garland nomination was handled. Are the Republicans the only ones that do that? Hell no. Look no further than Reid using reconciliation to get the Obamacare law passed. As I said, both "teams" are VERY good at doing it. The solution is to vote these bozos out and install more center of the aisle people. And unfortunately the people are too stupid to know it.
I was going along, liking your post, then this doozy of a sentence. WTH are you talking about? What far left program(s) have driven this country looney-tunes?
PSA/NB: "SCOTUS agreed to hear a case..." =/= SCOTUS ruled a certain way. SCOTUS might just rule against the states here.
The fact that one fellow responded with a funny emoji to the concerns of a widely respected conservative - probably one of the most profoundly ignorant responses I've ever seen to a serious post - should tell us that a minority in this country aren't concerned with democracy, but are brown shirts in search of tyranny. Violence looms if these anti-patriots think they are going to steal our democracy. Thank God we have the majority and the 2nd Amendment on our side.
So, you know more than Luttig and have no concerns? On what do you base your "it's the democrats' paranoia's" fault? To me, this isn't a partisan issue, but a threat from brown shirts who want a tyranny. I should concern all of us and not be blithely dismissed. Democracy is fragile, and this is not the first time it needs vigorous defending. It's under attack all over the world.
North Carolina does not have a referenda-passed fair districting amendment. What the Court intends to hold is that the North Carolina Supreme Court does not have the authority to interpret existing--legislature ratified--provisions in North Carolina's constitution on election-related matters.
Class move O&B...but at least a bit misplaced. You're putting way too much stock in that cat's opinion of your posts, if you give it half a thought. Your posts are fine; your contribution to this forum is welcome; your perspective fresh and original. His are cartoonish, have the depth of a puddle, and are little more than entertaining, on a very good day. TBL, you're not a libby, so your posts are not going to be well received here, period. Don't bother altering your game to placate opposing view. You do you; that's all you can control. Let the world figure itself out. jmho/fwiw.
What do you think you bring to the table besides snippety remarks and ridiculous worn out commie takes?
I was reading along, largely agreeing with you, then this sentence. What precisely have the democrats done, or proposed doing, that has brought the country to Looney Tunes Land, indeed, to the brink of a constitutional crisis?
Would you consider this Court ideologically driven if there were 9 Thurgood Marshalls on the Supreme Court?
