An alternative for high court judges

The recent rules change by the U.S. Congress was made for one reason, to proceed with the appointment of Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. He is well qualified, as was Judge Garland, who was recommended by a Democratic president.

Garland did not get appointed because the Republican Party did not want him on the bench and used the filibuster rules in order to block his appointment. The filibuster rule requires 60 votes in the senate rather than a bare majority. This rule was meant to prevent a majority party from dominating and controlling legislative action.

Gorsuch is well qualified, so this is not the problem. Garland also was qualified but was blocked a year ago by use of the filibuster. With the new rule change, the dominant party (Republican or Democrat) can now rule with a simple majority.

Some will argue that this is more democratic because the majority rules. However, the qualifications of a candidate can now become less important than the political party and who is appointing them.

Our poorly performing Congress can now become more polarized, more political and less apt to work together and compromise.

Jim Tisch said in USA Today that with the longer life span, it is better and practical to have term limits.

With a term limit of 18 years, staggered at two judges elected each presidential election, there would be less at stake, less bitterness, and a chance for a do-nothing Congress to work together.

Chances of Congress thinking about this is another question. Nobody really deserves a job without questions for life.

William McNutt

Des Plaines