BELOW IS AN EXCERPT FROM DECLARING GREATNESS: THEMES THAT TRANSFORM OUR DESTINY:

 

PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE  JUDICIAL BRANCH:

 

...There are only two remedies plausible. First, the American people must understand that we the people have the ultimate power in this country. This calls each and every American into activism. As the old saying goes, “all evil needs to prevail is good people to do nothing.”

 

The author will defer this conversation to the conclusion of this chapter. The second is to make the federal judiciary more responsive to the American people. It is dangerous to allow judges to possess the power of “judicial review” and, at the time, be an island unto themselves, so to speak, and have a lifetime appointment.

 

America’s founders correctly depoliticized the federal judiciary as much as they could through presidential appointment and U.S. senate confirmation, rather than some form of direct election. Election of the federal judiciary would be a disaster and should not be seriously considered.

 

All Americans need is their politicians running for and winning national election to our judicial posts. Can you imagine it? That said, judicial accountability must be extended past initial appointment and Senate confirmation as well as the possibility of impeachment.

 

The author’s Recommendations in this case may raise eyebrows, but it is also simple, may not require a Constitutional amendment and actually makes sense.

 

If the President believes a re-appointment was not in the best interests of the country and the people, he essentially would appoint a new judge to that judicial position and the incumbent judge would leave office on the 12th anniversary of the

initial confirmation by the Governor’s Council/U.S. Senate.

 

Otherwise, if re-appointed and re-confirmed, the incumbent would serve another dozen years. The time frame is negotiable, but must exceed the tenure of any given president, which is 10½ years under previous proposals (full seven years plus up

to 3½ years of a predecessor’s term). It should also be long enough for experience and expertise to build into the system.

 

Also to avoid undue disruption in this system when it goes into effect, the Chief Justice of United States, the Associate Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court 4th

and 7th in seniority, and all justices/judges in the 1st, 4th, 7th and 10th Appellant Court jurisdictions would come up for re-appointment and re-confirmation four

years after the Constitutional Amendment becomes effective and those judicial posts would then have 12-year terms thereafter.

 

After eight years, the Associate Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court 2nd, 5th and 8th in seniority and all the Judges/Justices in the 2nd, 5th, 8th, and 11th Appellant Court jurisdictions must stand for re-appointments and reconfirmation.

 

Finally, after 12 years, the Associate Justices 3rd, 6th, and last in seniority as well as all judges/justices in the 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th and 13th Appellant Court jurisdictions will be re-appointed and re-confirmed or they will be leaving office in favor of a new judge or justice.

 

If there is a vacancy in the interim, the new Appointee would serve a full twelve-Year upon his or her confirmation and that judicial seat would be subject to reappointment every dozen years thereafter.

 

The author can hear the American Bar Association, al., now. But it is only way to add accountability to the federal judiciary and keep the faith of America’s founders

in that system. Short of election, this is the only avenue by which the necessary accountability can be engendered into the Judicial Branch.

 

Please peruse Appendix I to review these proposed changes as the 32nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

 

Pros:

 

(1) Will add the accountability sorely needed and necessary. Plain and simple.

(2) Will eliminate Bork/Thomas/Merrick/Kavanaugh/Barrett confirmation fiascos because they are not going to be there forever, just 12 years. For instance, Clarence Thomas would have been up for re-appointment in 2003 and, if reappointed

and reconfirmed then, again in 2015. Thomas is currently the longest serving justice

at almost 30 years.

(3) America’s founders did not incorporate this in the U.S. Constitution because, just like with the legislative branch, they could not envision why anyone would want to be in government all their lives. 30-, 40- or even 50-year tenures in Congress or on the bench for decades was just beyond their conception! They are right! Enough said!

 

Cons:

(1) Turnover and loss of expertise and experience, same as with the U.S. Senate. That is logical. The incredibly long tenures now being served by members of the federal judiciary could not possibly have been imagined by the founders. So to them, as to the author, it’s a bogus argument for the most part. It assumes new, incoming members of the judiciary are green and would harm the judicial system unduly. Bunk!

 

(2) Not intended by the founders. It is really difficult telling, is it not? Article IV of the U.S. Constitution which created the judicial branch is quite vague. This is precisely why a Constitutional Amendment may not be necessary to make these changes, only laws passed.

 

However, the very judicial branch it is designed to reform would no doubt declare it unconstitutional, so a Constitutional Amendment would be the best bet. That’s the point!

 

Summary:

 

Quite frankly, the author is open for suggestions. But what else can Americans do, short of election?

 

If the reader needs further cause to justify these changes, just consider what happened in Bush v. Gore. The U.S. Supreme Court elected a president! Not the American people or even the Electoral College, but the U.S. Supreme Court!

Need I say more?...