The justices on the US Supreme Court would probably become more politically motivated, more polarized, and more heavily influenced by both popular opinion and partisan pressure. They would have greater difficulty being impartial and exercising judicial independence, and may issue more constitutionally inappropriate rulings than they do now, setting precedents that an appointed court may consider unconstitutional. They could also become more concerned with reelection than with the rule of law.
The ideology of the Court would probably shift more often as public sentiment changed, resulting in inconsistent decisions, conflicting precedents, more frequently overturned precedents, more lobbying by special interest groups, more test cases accepted and possibly favoring special interest groups that provide campaign support, and general chaos in the federal court system as a result this instability. There may be greater potential for corruption and less concern about maintaining personal integrity.
It is also possible people could being tried and penalized under radically different applications of law over a relatively short period of time, creating a constitutionally unfair situations. It could become easier to manipulate the law at lower court levels, and may create a need for more attorneys.
The public may choose less qualified candidates than the President and Senate, would be less informed about candidates' records of jurisprudence, and voters more easily swayed by the opinions of special interest groups, many of which lie and manipulate perception in pursuit of their own agenda.
The purpose behind granting life tenure to US Supreme Court justices is to insulate them (as much as possible) from outside influences. While it is impossible to completely divorce a justice from his or her personal and/or political ideology, the selection method outlined in the Constitution is more likely to result in a qualified and stable Court, although this is not always the case.
For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Bill is not eligible to be elected vice president .
Then they would be like the judges in the State of Texas. Some argue there, however, that it is difficult soliciting campaign funds and remaining impartial at the same time.
It was the end of the apartheid period and Nelson Mandela was elected as the first black president in South Africa
Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected for president for the fourth time.
Eight. Each term is 4 years. A president can serve a term and then get re-elected one time.
You don't have to be a resident...or a citizen...a graduate of America's finest law school...a sitting judge...or even attended college to be a Justice on the Supreme Court. The only requirement, according to the Constitution, for a person to take a seat on the Supreme Court that person must be nominated by the president and approved by the Senate. That's it! George W. Bush wanted to seat Harriet Miers, who'd never been a judge but was a lawyer. The Senate reported they were planning to not approve her because she'd never been a judge...but if a hog farmer or a diesel mechanic who never graduated from high school (a couple of Justices in the 19th century were high school dropouts who learned the law from reading books, so it's possible) could prove they had the greatest legal mind of all time to the satisfaction of the president and the Senate, the Supreme Court would seat that person.In today's legal environment that wouldn't happen because America has enough sitting judges they don't need to look outside their ranks for new Supreme Court Justices, but there's no law that says they can't still do it.
the supreme court made it easier for large businesses to operate. Apex
A president is elected by the electoral college (which is chosen by the votes of citizens). If no one candidate receives more than half of the votes, as can happen if there are more than two candidates, the House of Representatives chooses the President. The related link give more details.
The combination of Obama and Pailin as President and Vice-President cannot ever happen, simply because as of Jan 20, 2017 President Barack Obama ended his second term as a US President. In any election year prior to and including 2016, the two would never have been on the same ticket, since Barack is Democrat and Sarah is Republican. Sort of putting a bear with a badger and expecting them to get along. So this scenario would never, ever happen.
From a purely "is this technically permitted" viewpoint, yes.From a practical "could this ever actually happen" viewpoint, no freakin' way. There's no explicit age or education requirement for Supreme Court Justices, but a Justice who has neither experience nor formal training in law? Not gonna happen.
they can in a way. they get to pick their vice president who would take over the presidency if something were to happen but he has only his citizen's vote for the next prez.
The Vice-President might possibly have to assume Presidential powers while she was in the delivery room.