The inconsideration with which some people so easily dismiss democracy borders on negligence. Ironically, the callousness of your response in itself makes the best anti-democracy argument thus far on this thread.
Still, I would rather ride with the will of the people than with the will of 9 unknown, unelected lawyers
I was being sarcastic.
You know what though? He's right.
The masses shouldn't be trusted to vote on the civil rights and liberties of minorities.
Those 9 unknown, unelected lawyers chose to give my people freedom while the masses were against it because putting my people away in institutions gave them cushy jobs. They made money off of our backs, and our freedom represented an economic danger for them.
Screw the public and its ideas of democracy.
Not sure who your people are, but the Supreme Court ruled in FAVOR of slavery.
Abraham Limcoln and the Union army freed your people, not the court.
So guess who put ole honest abe in power...the PEOPLE.
The disabled.
And yes, you wise masses fought against our freedom because it hurt you economically.
Freedom of the disabled? Huh?
Context please
Research it yourself.
The matter is that you seem to think it justified to put minority rights up for vote by the majority.
The majority oppress the minority every chance they get. In order to receive basic human rights you democrats want us to get on our knees to beg, and beg everyone to secure liberties you folks take for granted.
Not only is it demeaning it is also not virtuous.
The majority do not have the right nor do they deserve the right to dictate what freedoms and liberties are not going to be bestowed to peoples they hate.
I favor electing Supreme Court judges the same way we elect senators. You don't make every decision for your senator, do you? No...but it's a good thing we have that oversight where we can hold him or her accountable by voting him out of office if necessary.
I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of the inherent goodness of the American People. Personally, I think that while nobody is perfect, there's no wagon I'd rather hitch mine to than the American People.
This is the greatest country on earth, and our people are the reason
By putting them to vote you want their decisions to not be based on justice, but your temperamental whims. You also want this because a minority won basic human rights. Your hatred should not be the primary determinant to whether minorities get rights. It's transparent as can be because you have faith that gays are less likely to have civil rights if you can get democracy in there, and that's why you want the American people to have more influence in the outcomes of the court system.
I don't have faith in the American people with minority civil liberties. There's few more likely to remove my civil liberties than my neighbor. Why? Because they are bigoted, hateful creatures who neither understand issues or rights in front of them, nor do they pay much mind to the consequences of such actions.
I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of the inherent goodness of the American People. Personally, I think that while nobody is perfect, there's no wagon I'd rather hitch mine to than the American People.
This is the greatest country on earth, and our people are the reason
Every time election season comes around, it makes me think less of the American people. Americans are TERRIBLE at picking candidates these days.
Agree to disagree, but no need to make this personal.
Lmao:
We know that sentiment wouldn't apply to these imaginary SCOTUS elections if you're on the losing end... right?
I can agree to not make it personal here because it is a web forum, but let's examine why your statement is incredibly audacious.
Why shouldn't we make it personal? It's a very personal matter to the folks you wish to oppress.
We could keep our distance because you hold no power, but if you did, they would have every right to make it personal because it impacts them to an extent you wouldn't have to deal with, nor would you tolerate if it was done to you.
If you not only had publicly advocated for the ability to vote for for a Judge, rallied for a Judge with your proclivities, and in your own little way advocated to influence the outcome of a case by way of mass outrage, I would think very much that they would have every right to take it personally and admonish you for it.
I know it's easy for you to keep your distance, because voting against gay marriage doesn't affect you either way, but it nevertheless does great impact the civil liberties of others.
I would be in favor of more judges, of having the judges elected, and having the judges serve 6 year terms similar to senators. That way, they are at least somewhat accountable to the people they are meant to govern.
All I'm saying is I want Supreme Court judges to be elected, just like senators are elected. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. I was just banned for 2 days for taking bait like this, I won't make the same mistake twice. Let's just keep a civil discussion going on the issues, please. I'd like to say I learned my lesson.
Judges do not "govern" anyone, they merely interpret the words of those who do govern. That's why they aren't subject to election.
If the legislature had not written equal protection under the law into the constitution, it could not have been interpreted to mean that all people (including gays, and including laws on marriage) were guaranteed equal protection.
Cruse's proposal is the ultimate grasping at straws.
But it is on topic. Increasing democracy to the court system increases to prominence of the citizenry's impulses and their motivations for certain justices *and* expected rulings. Your advocacy of such a position, much like Mr. Cruz, is predicated on a certain belief that the solution must come because of a specific outcome in a specific case by which a minority was granted civil rights.
It's all related and the consequences of your policy idea would necessarily mean that the motivations of the citizenry take center stage in the highest court in the criminal justice system. Your proposal does not exist in a vacuum, however much of an inconvenience it is for you to accept that.
Call it bait if you wish, but this is merely basic intellectual research and discussion.
I don't need to press any further, because I've said all I can, and you've said as little as you can.
The problem is you never know another man's motivation, and I'm under no obligation to explain myself to you.
Don't you find that incredibly hypocritical considering you're wanting the right to determine the human and civil rights of swaths of the American public?
They have to explain themselves to you, but be damned if the same is asked of you?
I'm not asking anyone to explain themselves to me.
I'm simply stating that I would rather see us elect judges, as we do senators, than have them be lifetime appointed lawyers who decide the fate of 350 million people without those people having a say in who represents them.
That's all I'm saying. Everything else you are projecting on to me.
Why should the Supreme Court be insulated from the will of the very people it is meant to govern? The American People are not idiots or children, we can govern ourselves quote capably.
The safeguards to judicial power you have outlined, while important, represent an emergency brake when what we, the Anerican Public, require, is much more involved oversight.
I think we have a fundamental difference of political philosophy. I understand that the American People will get it wrong from time to time, just as the unelected 9 will get it wrong a lot of the time as well. History has proven both of these statements out.
But when the cards are laid down....I would much rather ride with the Anerican People than with 9 elitist appointees who hide behind their robes and their marble walls.
So you would rather have them rule based on what will get them elected than on what the law and the constitution is? That seems wrong somehow...
Add my family to that. They are all for folks going their own way. But even the ones who campaigned in their states for homosexual marriage, hate this decision and the way in which they got what they wanted. When will the namecallers learn that the method counts often more than the result.
I'm not asking anyone to explain themselves to me.
I'm simply stating that I would rather see us elect judges, as we do senators, than have them be lifetime appointed lawyers who decide the fate of 350 million people without those people having a say in who represents them.
That's all I'm saying. Everything else you are projecting on to me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?