If we eliminated lifetime appointments and created term limits, each side would get a fair chance to change the makeup of the court in a reasonable amount of time. Justices could serve single staggered terms with each president selecting justices during the first and third year of their presidency. The term could be 15 or 18 years, after which justices would retire with appropriate pensions and benefits. This would create the opportunity for every president to have an equal number of selections. Congress would be charged with making an up or down vote within a certain time limit — say, 60 days, thereby ending filibusters and judicial holds.

Rick W., Wakefield, Rhode Island

Ten-year term limits should be placed on Supreme Court justices. Or let the public vote for them, just like we vote for mayors, governors and presidents.

Juan G.

Both the House and Senate should have a vote for confirmation of Supreme Court justices.

Virginia H.

Supreme Court justices shouldn’t be chosen by the president in office at the time. The people should elect new justices.

Donna F., New York

My daughter and granddaughter are both American citizens, thankfully now living outside America, and I am a British citizen living between Australia and Singapore. I, like many outside America, need you to be the shining light on the hill, to inspire the rest of us. The U.S. Supreme Court needs to define and uphold a published code of ethics similar to other courts in the U.S., and the number of justices should be raised to 81. There were nine justices when the U.S. population was 40 million, and the current population is nearly nine times larger. Furthermore, no justices should be able to hear a case in which they have a conflict of interest. No man or woman is above the law, and that applies to justices as well as presidents.

Barbara D.

I feel like the only reason you're talking about reforms to the court is you don't like the recent decisions. If the court ruled the way you wanted, I have a feeling you wouldn't be writing about this. People aren't stupid and we are tired of being told what to think by the media.

Jeff P., Honolulu, Hawaii

I am sorry but I disagree with your view on the Supreme Court. This institution exists to protect the Constitution, not to pander to the ever-changing viewpoint of the populace.

Robert M.

on The Carlos Watson Show!

The Supreme Courts of two countries decriminalized abortion over the past nine months. Which nations are we talking about? Write to us with your answers at OzyCommunity@ozy.com. We’ll share the answer and callouts to those who get it right in an upcoming Daily Dose!

We previously asked which European country is home to the most pet birds. The correct answer: Italy.

Without judicial review, how are cases of the legislative or executive branches overstepping their constitutionally-mandated bounds adjudicated? How does the Constitution remain the supreme law of the land if there is no forum to adjudicate the state exercising authority outside of the bounds set by the Constitution?

Steve B., Tennessee Ridge, Tennessee

The Supreme Court decision to allow taxpayers to fund religious education is, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, “sinful and tyrannical.” Jefferson, along with Adams, Franklin and Madison, knew about the atrocities that occurred during the Dark Ages when church and state were combined in Europe. They wanted “no king and no pope” in the new country, maintaining a separation of church and state. A freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion is a First Amendment right. The separation of church and state is one bedrock that protects and enshrines equality in a way that too many of us do not understand, but which will be painfully obvious when it's gone. That separation is America. And if the justices finally tear down the constitutional wall that ensures that separation, they will tear down America.

Paul P., Lihue, Hawaii

What idea, innovation, person, or theme would you love to read about on OZY?

Share your thoughts with us at OzyCommunity@Ozy.com.