Judicial Reform ... Should a President Be Able to Remove Judges?

[jaF0]

Sept. 12 (UPI) -- More than a third of Americans believe the president should have the authority to remove sitting judges, if their legal decisions "go against the national interest," according to an Axios/Ipsos poll released Monday.

A total of 35% of the 1,001 people surveyed feel that way, with 15% strongly agreeing, and 20% saying they somewhat agree.
The poll was conducted on Sept. 1 and 2.

On the other side of the ledger, 24% of survey respondents strongly disagreed, 19% somewhat disagreed, and 22% said they weren't sure.

The results come as Americans' opinions of the Supreme Court hit a near-record low in June, according to a Gallup poll.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/202...-judges-decision-supreme-court/3861662995122/

 

[jaF0]

I say No. Not directly. That could lead to all sorts of issues.

I believe there should be a board or commission to review questionable decisions however that COULD lead to a Judge's removal. It would need to be a part of the Judiciary with some independent members. This would not be the same as overturning a decision which basically does nothing to the Judge. It would be disciplinary in nature and examine the ruling itself as well as the Judge's past rulings to see if there is a pattern.

This could simply nullify the ruling and force a rehearing by another Judge or seek removal, suspension or other actions against the Judge including criminal prosecution.

It would have to be structured so as not to be subject to Supreme Court scrutiny as they may be subject to review also.

 

[butters]

give a president that power, with the power to decide which rulings are bad without them even having any legal background themselves, and it could backfire impressively. Imagine trump having had that power... how many good judges would he have got rid of in order to appease his own desires?
edit: a president 'could' be given the final task of signing off on the decision made by a judicial body, but only as a formality (like pence verifying the electoral count) and not something that could be refused at whim. It's important to keep those government bodies separate.

 

[jaF0]

This would not be the same as Impeachment and removal in Congress, though it may be a precursor to that.

Members would be sworn to be absolutely non-partisan in all regards and their backgrounds must be shown to be impartial.

 

[ishtat]

Be much more effective if all Judges had to retire at 75. Turnover was achieved in the 1780s by deaths. Faster turnover with a reasonable retirement age would make stacking the courts less attractive because the 'fix' would not last so long.

 

[ll74]

Congress has the power to impeach.

 

[JohnEBbad]

Civics 101

The Executive is a separate branch of government from the Judiciary.
There is a mechanism to impeach already, that is all that is necessary.
Democrats would not be continually bitching* about Judges if they had
not coronated Hillary Clinton as our next President without taking into
consideration what the basketful of Deplorables felt about her and her
aura of Nixonian corruption and Machiavellian machinations.

So, short answer: NO



* Engaging in grievance porn for IlDuce74

 

[jaF0]

Congress has the power to impeach.

Only for essentially criminal acts which doesn't cover what we're talking about. Things like abuse of power, drunk on the bench, bribery, influence peddling, etc.

https://ballotpedia.org/Impeachment...eachment of judges,before an outcome at trial.

The closest to what we're discussing many have been Samuel Chase in 1804.

https://www.history.com/news/has-a-u-s-supreme-court-justice-ever-been-impeached


But even that was more about abuse than bad or partisan rulings and decisions.

 

[jaF0]

Be much more effective if all Judges had to retire at 75. Turnover was achieved in the 1780s by deaths. Faster turnover with a reasonable retirement age would make stacking the courts less attractive because the 'fix' would not last so long.

We have rules about age discrimination and many of the problem judges are much younger.

A better answer would be fixed, non renewable terms rather than lifetime appointments.

 

[JohnEBbad]

Civics 101

Lifetime appointments are there to ensure Judicial Independence.
Don't you see how the fear of (political) removal would impair independence?
Is that what you want? A system where an incoming President could just whisk away the judges appointed by your party? Or do you wan that because you believe we are truly headed towards a one-party nation and you want to make sure the judges stay in line?