Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

A modest proposal for taking partisanship out of the federal judiciary

gavel
Marilyn Nieves/Getty Images

Patton was the Democratic governor of Kentucky from 1995 to 2003 and has been chancellor of the University of Pikeville for seven years.


Our very wise Founders established a method for the people to have a direct way to be involved in the selection of our president and our Congress. Then they provided for the two of them to select our federal judiciary. That worked well for almost 200 years. It is failing us now.

There are a few hot-button social issues about which this nation is passionate and divided. Among these are abortion rights, gun rights, gay rights and the separation of church and state. All these issues have and may still come before the Supreme Court. They are all important issues that impact people in very serious ways, but the future of the nation does not depend on them. The important issues that threaten the nation are the national debt, the economy, the federal budget, crime, defense, healthcare and Social Security — things that affect all of our lives every day.

The nation is so divided that we cannot make a rational decision on these important issues.

A major reason is the selection of the federal judiciary. It seems many people vote on these issues, even when they disagree with their preferred candidate on other, more important issues. His stated opposition to abortion was crucial to Donald Trump's election four years ago.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Justices on the high court, and judges on the federal appeals and trial courts, are now selected by presidents mainly because they are either a liberal or a conservative. We now have a Supreme Court with five reliable conservatives, three reliable liberals and one not always reliable conservative. We should have courts where personal beliefs are not an issue. Judges should not be known as liberals or conservatives. Judges and justices should not be selected based on their social beliefs, but instead on their demonstrated willingness to decide issues based on the Constitution and federal law.

This is a national crisis. Article III of the Constitution is obsolete. The only solution is to remove the involvement of the two other branches of the federal government in populating the third branch.

The Constitution makes one of the most important parts of our system of government, the privately owned free press, a bedrock of our system, not beholden to the two elected branches, but rather the watchdog of those two branches. Genius. It has worked pretty well. A lot of misinformation is out there but enough rebuttal is available to permit concerned citizens to discern the truth.

We need to do the same with the federal court system. Turn it over to the American Bar Association. This voluntary organization's members are educated, by and large ethical, and representative of the people. There are about 1.3 million licensed attorneys in the United States. They can protect the people of the nation as well as the free press can. Let's trust them.

I propose the federal judiciary be a career path for young lawyers to pursue. There are now 94 trial court districts with 667 judges and 13 courts of appeal with 167 judges. There is one Supreme Court with nine justices — for now. This is at least 843 highly compensated and secure positions for ambitious and talented young attorneys to aspire to. The courts will continue to expand. There will be more judicial positions in the future.

I propose that the district judges be selected by the licensed attorneys who practice in that district, using secret ballots to select among all qualified attorneys who apply for each vacancy. I would have runoffs between the top two finishers — who would have to be 35 years old with five years of experience as a trial attorney. They could serve until they turned 65 and have retirement benefits for life.

Circuit appeals court judges, in turn, would be similarly selected — but by the district judges in the relevant circuits, choosing from trial court colleagues who want the job. These judges would need to be at least 40 and have been on the bench at least five years when they're promoted, and would have to step aside at age 70.

One proposal for expanding the Supreme Court calls for increasing it to 17 justices and having cases reviewed by subgroups of them but subject to a discretionary later hearing by the full court — the general practice on the appeals courts now. Sounds like a good idea to me.

The eight new justices, and replacements for the current nine, would be selected by all the lower court judges. Judges with at least five years on an appeals court could apply. The top two finishers in the first round of voting would go on to a runoff, and the winner could serve until age 75.

There are about 8,000 new cases filed in the Supreme Court each year. It hears about 80 of them (1 percent, in other words) and disposes of about 100 more without full review. So there are many cases that someone thinks is worth spending a lot of money on but which don't get a fair hearing. This proposal would allow many more cases to get at least an initial high court review.

This will be seen as stacking the court, but changes like this only occur during times of crisis. We have a crisis about selecting judges and justices — and it is destroying the ability of the nation to come together on a lot of other, very serious issues.

Read More

Just The Facts- Impact of Department of Education Cuts
The future of civic education
Getty Images

Just The Facts- Impact of Department of Education Cuts

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

How many jobs are being cut from the Department of Education, and what percentage of the total workforce is that?

Keep ReadingShow less
Congress Bill Spotlight: BAD DOGE Act

U.S. President Donald Trump listens as White House Senior Advisor, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, speaks next to a Tesla Cyber Truck and a Model S on the South Lawn of the White House on March 11, 2025, in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Congress Bill Spotlight: BAD DOGE Act

The Fulcrum introduces Congress Bill Spotlight, a weekly report by Jesse Rifkin, focusing on the noteworthy legislation of the thousands introduced in Congress. Rifkin has written about Congress for years, and now he's dissecting the most interesting bills you need to know about, but that often don't get the right news coverage.

Though it’s been cutting left and right, could DOGE itself be cut next?

Keep ReadingShow less
Racing Against Memory Loss: The Urgent Need to Address Dementia Disparities
brown brain decor in selective-focus photography

Racing Against Memory Loss: The Urgent Need to Address Dementia Disparities

Newly appointed Secretary for Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has his work cut out regarding brain health among elderly Americans. A study published in Nature Journal earlier this year estimates that the number of new dementia cases in people 65 years and older in the U.S. will double over the next four decades, from about 514,000 in 2020 to about 1 million in 2060. The total number of people currently living with Alzheimer’s dementia is close to 7 million.

The same study also highlights that Black Americans are twice as likely to develop dementia later in life, compared to White Americans, and Latinos are one and a half more likely. These results underscore the urgent need for policies promoting healthy aging and addressing health inequities' root causes, which includes access to affordable and nutritious foods. Kennedy’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agenda features chronic diseases and improved lifestyles. Whether everyone will benefit equally or not, depends on his political will to address systemic inequalities.

Keep ReadingShow less
Did We Learn or Not? Why There Can Be No Going Back on COVID Lessons
blue and white plastic bottle

Did We Learn or Not? Why There Can Be No Going Back on COVID Lessons

Five years ago this month, COVID-19 changed the world. The first pandemic in a century altered how Americans saw themselves, each other, work, healthcare, relationships, government, mortality, and media. It tangled everyone across the globe in webs of fear, conflict, grief, disbelief, estrangement, and gratitude.

It prompted a parallel pandemic of disinformation that has only deepened in the years since and crescendoed in the last few months. It is foolish to ignore the impact of these past five years on every person in this country and the world, particularly with current policies and practices that ignore this distinct past.

Keep ReadingShow less