2007-11-21 02:25:02 · 12 answers · asked by oldsandroad 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Oh HELL YES!
With term limits too!
2007-11-21 02:27:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. The Supreme Court is set up as a system of checks and balances and does not need to be elected. Has any Justice ever been put in the seat without the nod of the legislature? No.
2007-11-21 10:43:52 · answer #2 · answered by SimonSez 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Elected by who? The general public???
Looking at how badly the voters did in the last two presidential elections, why would we want to put the decision of who are the best candidates for the highest court in the land in the public's hands?
2007-11-21 10:30:30 · answer #3 · answered by lunatic 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, I would support an amendment of this nature. In doing so, the potential candidates would have to campaign and acknowledge their standing on the crucial issues that will be required to review and appraise.
2007-11-21 10:29:53 · answer #4 · answered by michael p 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
no, Supreme court justices are meant to be impartial, and that won't happen if they have continuously run for office.
2007-11-21 10:29:32 · answer #5 · answered by arkainisofphoenix 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No. The process is very time consuming and costly. With voting, we would end up with politicians, rather than legal scholars.
2007-11-21 10:41:13 · answer #6 · answered by regerugged 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No.
A limitation on their term in office, perhaps, but not an election.
2007-11-21 10:37:57 · answer #7 · answered by RTO Trainer 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no, im tired of people trying to change the constitution for no reason.
2007-11-21 10:34:08 · answer #8 · answered by smarternow 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, not after the American people 'elected' bush twice.
I can't trust their judgement anymore.
2007-11-21 10:27:32 · answer #9 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
no but i think they should have a way of removing them if they do illegal things or try to change laws
2007-11-21 10:37:01 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋