But what about states which use gerrymandering? These are enough to shift the balance of power in the House of Representatives. Computer programs are guaranteed to end gerrymandering. Peer-review of the winning program will ensure that. How will a computer program which is required to be used by all states make gerrymandering worse?
With control of Congress dependent on just a few changes in party affiliation, gerrymandering makes a huge difference. A computer program will completely end gerrymandering.
No, there are limits to state powers. Gerrymandering is essentially disenfranchising some voters.
True, but it might be difficult to impose term limits because the Constitution says SCOTUS justices have lifetime appointments.
That’s what’s desired. Someone who isn’t interested in politics just whether a computer program is biased. All states would have to use the winning computer program.
Democrats should pressure Platner to resign. If he refuses, remove him from the party.
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.
Peer-review by university professors of computer science. Since gerrymandering exists, a computer program is quite necessary.
18-year terms is a good idea. I just feel uneasy about a bad justice serving that long. Mathematicians should be given the problem of coming up with the smallest number that would prevent a single President from appointing a majority. They would be allowed to change the number of justices.
You could be correct. It’s a good problem that could be presented to mathematicians. Find the smallest number that prevents a single President from appointing a majority of SCOTUS justices. Mathematicians would be permitted to change the number of justices. The problem with 18 is that a bad justice would serve a long time, but it might be the only solution.
That scenario would involve Congress and his nominated justices going along. Longer term limits would mean a bad justice staying for a long time.
Good point but then the extra justices would have to be paid with taxpayer money, and more justices would be asking questions in cases before the entire court.
Or limit the terms of SCOTUS justices in order to remove those who make bad rulings.
If SCOTUS is filled with fascists, then something is wrong. The reason for term limits is to remove justices who are making bad rulings.
More justices won’t hear more cases since all the justices hear the same cases. It might be slower since more justices would now be asking questions.
Taxpayers would have to pay these additional judges. The selection process beyond Supreme Court justices could be for a bipartisan committee of scholars to select a set number of qualified individuals to be judge. One of these would be randomly chosen.
The problem with 18- and 13-year terms is that a bad justice would remain a long time. In my proposal, a justice can continue serving beyond 6 years if presidents keep selecting him and the Senate continues to confirm him.
Mechal-Hitler would have to pass peer-review.
States have limits on what they can do. They cannot disenfranchise voters which is what gerrymandering does. The US government would have companies bid on a computer districting program. The winning program would be subject to peer review by university computer science professors to ensure the integrity of the program. All states would be required to use the program. In contrast, you have no solution to forcing states to adopt independent redistricting commission. Also, these states would probably fill the commission with biased people.