Q2: Men in Black

Why are the Supreme Court justices considered unelected? After all, the justices are nominated by the President who is elected and confirmed by the Senate body which is also elected to the office by the country?

Jn: B/c they are NOT elected. The Senate is technically not supposed to confirm them, just advise and comment to the President, who appoints.
Ray: They are unelected, but so they will be unbiased, not directly responsible to any constituents. B/c then they’d be worried about reelection.
Jer: They aren’t supposed to be political. The general public doesn’t know the Const as well as the Pres, in theory. ! Should be the best man for the job, not the richest.
Jason: They are unelected and … unaccountable. Don’t have to worry about reelection or renomination.
Jn: They can do and say whatever they want at this point, and they can pretty much do whatever they want.
Jason: We could make an Amendment and they could say it’s unconstitutional.
[big argument about the Amendment route!]
Ray: Interpreting the Const doesn’t go outside their bounds.
Jason: So they CAN say whatever they want about it.
Jn: Originally, being unelected was a good idea, but now… it’s something we should look at and decide if it’s needed now. I DON’T like direct election, but I do like Levin’s idea about being renominated at times.