What I'd Change on the Supreme Court

 Over the past month, I've reflected a good bit over the Supreme Court and think it's probably time to make some changes.  My four:

1.  Once 'elected' to the position on the court, it's for a 10-year term, and then you retire, period.  Lifetime appointments come to end.  

2.  Maximum age upon appointment?  Sixty.  To be precise....60 years and 364 days of age upon nomination.  

3.  A total of ten members on the court, with one person always held as a reserve judge.

4.  Upon death or retirement, an absolute understanding that the seat will be filled within 60 days.  The 'reserve' member would ensure a nine-member court is always in the game-plan.  The President will nominate someone within seven days of the death/retirement.  The Senate must meet within 14 days to start the process (with some Xmas/Thanksgiving exemption).  

Urban View

 In the past, I've worked with people who lived most of their lives as kids in major urban centers (Philly, Chicago, NY City), and they would make the comment that they couldn't live in a city of less than 500k residents.  

I worked with a contractor at Ramstein, who arrived and became fairly disenchanted with the local town (K-town) because it just wasn't that 'big' (100k residents)....that it lacked cultural events....that it didn't have much of anything to do. 

I've always been at the other end of the spectrum....living around a small area of 300 residents is mighty fine, and just as interesting as the enchanted cities of Seattle or Dallas.  

I've felt that way as I travel across Europe.  There might be some pluses in cities like Rome, Den Haag, or Munich. But the smaller towns have character and charm as well.  

Lately, with all the chaos focused on cities like NY, Minneapolis, Seattle or Portland....I see less and less reasons to be urban-charmed.  You give up some element of safety and security, without anything to be gained.  

An end-point?  No.