![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So I'm reading about this John Roberts guy in the paper this morning, and was not surprised to discover that although he apparently keeps his personal positions pretty quiet, as far as we can tell, he is against abortion and thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned and does not think that prayer in schools (the specific example was at a graduation) poses any problem with relation to "coercion" (okay, I don't think so either, in those terms, but that doesn't make it appropriate). But apparently there is also something about finding wildlife regulations to be "unconstitutional" (WTF?) or something.
Am I the only one who thinks that there should be some kind of law that each extant political party (maybe over a certain size) has to be represented with an equal amount of judges on the Supreme Court? I'm not sure how you'd decide what the ninth person could be, but for example, that we would have 4 Democrats and 4 Republicans. Then again, these do not correspond to "liberal" and "conservative" necessarily, and there is no way to legislate based on that, because that has to do with opinion and relative position rather than something which is either one or the other. Also, that would probably lead to a lot of 5-4 votes, which is the most uneasy, because it means there was no clear agreement on the "right" of the case.
(How does Canada pick justices for its Supreme Court? leastways I assume they have a reasonably similar court system? hmm...)
Am I the only one who thinks that there should be some kind of law that each extant political party (maybe over a certain size) has to be represented with an equal amount of judges on the Supreme Court? I'm not sure how you'd decide what the ninth person could be, but for example, that we would have 4 Democrats and 4 Republicans. Then again, these do not correspond to "liberal" and "conservative" necessarily, and there is no way to legislate based on that, because that has to do with opinion and relative position rather than something which is either one or the other. Also, that would probably lead to a lot of 5-4 votes, which is the most uneasy, because it means there was no clear agreement on the "right" of the case.
(How does Canada pick justices for its Supreme Court? leastways I assume they have a reasonably similar court system? hmm...)