"The Supreme Court’s attacks on voting rights are about rigging elections for Republicans," said Rep. Greg Casar, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
A computer program can’t be biased because it has no emotions. The only input it’s needed are the boundary of a state, the population, where they live, and the desired number of districts. The winning program would be peer-reviewed to ensure the integrity of the program.
No, the selection process would remain unchanged. The President selects and the Senate confirms. The difference in my proposal is the process repeats after six years for a particular justice.
A computer program can be biased, if the software developers who write it are biased.
Also, a six year term on SC Justices would mean that any time there’s a two-term president, by the end of the second term, literally every single SC Justice would have been selected by the same president. That’s a terrible idea.
A 10-year term at least guarantees that there’s a different president in office when one is up for reappointment, and they can be staggered to avoid appointing all at once. But even that’s not so great of an idea, because it would be too volatile. Every time a new president comes in, he would get rid of all or most of his predecessor’s appointments. That wouldn’t restore non-partisanship to the courts, it would make things worse.
The winning computer program would be subject to peer-review. This would spot biases.
Yes, 6-year terms are too short. The article suggests 18-year terms. That could very well be the optimum number, but that is a long time for a bad justice to be serving. I would have mathematicians look for the smallest number that would prevent a single President from appointing a majority of justices. They would be allowed to adjust the number of justices.
A computer program can’t be biased because it has no emotions. The only input it’s needed are the boundary of a state, the population, where they live, and the desired number of districts. The winning program would be peer-reviewed to ensure the integrity of the program.
No, the selection process would remain unchanged. The President selects and the Senate confirms. The difference in my proposal is the process repeats after six years for a particular justice.
A computer program can be biased, if the software developers who write it are biased.
Also, a six year term on SC Justices would mean that any time there’s a two-term president, by the end of the second term, literally every single SC Justice would have been selected by the same president. That’s a terrible idea.
A 10-year term at least guarantees that there’s a different president in office when one is up for reappointment, and they can be staggered to avoid appointing all at once. But even that’s not so great of an idea, because it would be too volatile. Every time a new president comes in, he would get rid of all or most of his predecessor’s appointments. That wouldn’t restore non-partisanship to the courts, it would make things worse.
The winning computer program would be subject to peer-review. This would spot biases.
Yes, 6-year terms are too short. The article suggests 18-year terms. That could very well be the optimum number, but that is a long time for a bad justice to be serving. I would have mathematicians look for the smallest number that would prevent a single President from appointing a majority of justices. They would be allowed to adjust the number of justices.