Is it right to allow a president (who a significant majority of voters did not want) to appoint two justices to the Supreme Court, that has evolved into a law-making body.
Just consider some of the recent rulings, corporations are considered “citizens,” therefore they can contribute to political campaigns.
• Cleared the way for legal sports wagering.
• Upheld aggressive state programs to purge voting rolls.
• Upheld gerrymandering.
• Issued a critical blow to labor unions.
My point is every one of the rulings has had more of a direct effect on the way American citizens live their lives than any law that has come out of Congress. Oh! wait you say, what about Obamacare – look at the way that Congressional law affected us. Well, just remember the Supreme Court had a chance to kill it and they didn’t. Obamacare is with us because the Supreme Court said so…
I wonder how the right would be reacting if the shoe was on the other foot? If a Democrat who did not win the popular vote was going to appoint two liberal judges to the Supreme Court. My guess is they would be just as concerned as the left is now.
• Prevent any president who did not win the popular vote from nominating Supreme Court Justices.
• Only allow one appointment per president per term.
• Keep the number of Justices at eight. Four appointed by each party. Now it’s a fair “fight” and law-making power might just shift back to the people’s representatives i.e., Congress.
• Get rid of the lifetime appointment for Supreme Court Justices, set a mandatory retirement age.
We need to find a way to get the “people’s will” into every government body, especially the Supreme Court. I acknowledge that a popularly elected president does reflect the “people’s will,” but this president was not a popularly elected president.