SCOTUS easy fix

In a world where common sense prevailes, the United States is a functioning democracy. In a nation that believes its people are the government...we have no dictator to tell us what is best, no single communist party to bring us all forward together in one voice... No, we are Americans, land of the free, to choose how we want to be governed, and to choose within our state our own rules, and to agree with other states they can have thier rules as long as we all agree to these ten simple principles.... and also this new eleventh one we need to add... And oh yes when we say everyone we mean everyone and that means voting too, oh yes voting we all can vote, and but you can't drink, except that's a bad idea...we can change that...some president stuff we need to agree on, and you have to be this old to vote by the way sooo not really everyone but... Anyway, these are common sense rules for a functioning democracy we all agree on...and then you can do whatever you want whithin your state......well except when you break these other laws...federation stuff we all agree on...but what? It's not fair you say...let's ask the judges...

The five of them... I mean six errr ten...no nine, That the president chooses, unless the congress is of another party so they can ignore his choice once until they get a better one...sure just because. But this is a functional democracy that holds that its creators were god like and infallible so those ten things were...oh wait... Ummm...27 things we agree on now are perfect and should never change or be added on to or anything. 

Because change is scary, so let's change the rules so we can't change things anymore. What?

This democracy has some solid rules 26 or so...and a bunch of old white dudes, speaking for those at home, add about 300 new rules every year that we need to follow... But you say that rules is not fair, those old white dudes made a rule you didn't like, or ignored a rule you need... So let's ask the 9 judges, these old white dudes chose, to decide who's right...wait what. 

It's time the people took back thier government. The SCOTUS is part of that government, and it's very odd the people have little to no say on who is part of that group of judges. 

This is how I propose we take the power back in order to have a Justice that is for the people, by the people, a truly blind justice. 

We need an even number of judges, ten is good, makes it easy, creates ties...easy fix. Judges should represent the people...but is it beneficial to have a balanced court?

I propose two methods... The people should vote, but not on specific judges, the people don't have time to vet them all out, so we vote on who we want to pick for us...and you say we already do that, the POTUS, but I say that's not a good choice for who's picking...because maybe you want a conservative POTUS for foreign policy issues but a liberal SCOTUS for domestic issues...and you want your representative to be politically opposite of your POTUS so that legislation and Presidential power has a proper check and balance...but as it is now you have to decide who you want in one position to choose who is in the other, and there is a conflict there. 

So let's vote for SCOTUS separately...say every ten years we vote, non presidential year...we choose a party to pick our judges, the ballot will have a party name and the list of judges they will choose ranked in order, so no surprises. In a dream you would hope a few parties can form lists...tea party will have some super constitutional judges, GOP will have a few moderates on thier list to appeal to more voters, a new moderate party can form choosing moderate judges... And then the people pick... And the results

Super right 19% 2 judges

Right 25% 3 judges

Mods 15% 1 judge

Left 23% 3 judges

Spr left 17% 1 judge

So then the court is made of ten or fewer Judges...top round up bottom round down, must have 10% of the vote to qualify sooo to discourage too many partys... 

A 15% 2 judges

B  14% 2 judges

C 14% 1 judge

D 12% 1 judge

E 9% 0 judges

F 9%

G 9%

H 9%

I 9%

6 total judges on the court for those ten years. If a judge retires or passes then that party replaces the judge with the next pick on thier list. 

If 1 or no party reaches 10%, then there is a revote with the top 6 parties only on the ballot. 

Canidates can be part of one party during the general election but part of another during the SCOTUS election, sort of a sub party...this process could help bring change to the two party system and establish differences within the parties and develope new parties. Good for democracy. 

Or you could do the same system except the top two vote getters each choose 5 judges, no matter what % they got total. 

Then what about ties...that's another big change... Tie goes to the voters, in such a case the two sides will have representatives from thier parties to campaign on behalf of thier decision, there could be debates and public trails, then we vote one decision or the other... The people decide the close ones... As we should. 

I'm tired goodnight.