- Joined
- Dec 13, 2011
- Messages
- 10,348
- Reaction score
- 2,426
- Location
- The anals of history
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Checks and balances. They need to be removed from influence. Also the reason for the high hurdle to change/amend the constitution. It can be done, just not easy.
Do you recall why we pushed to elect Senators? Increased majority input as opposed to well-entrenched minorities. Electing judges is a purposeful act of trying to impose democratic wills onto a traditionally oligarchical institution. Likewise, the reason why this has come up was because of gay marriage. That's the rationale for elected judges, and Ted Cruz rationalized in on that basis. So did you.
We also both know I am not projecting what your motivations are here.
Influence from what, the will of the people they serve?
I want them to be more in touch, not more out of touch.
Your continued insistence on making this personal, in spite of my repeated requests to keep this discussion civil and on topic, regrettably leave me with no choice but to stop debating with you on this topic for the time being.
I just want to discuss the issues, man.
Justices are supposed to be kept Out of touch.
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
If you have trouble confronting the scope of the issue, that's your and Cruz's problem. Luckily for the rest of us, we aren't going to put in place a system which puts our justice system in a position where it has to produce the results the majority wants, even if it oppresses a minority that the majority has made no attempts to disguise it's hatred for.
Yes, I know. You're happy with less freedom as long as people vote for less freedom.
Says who? That seems backwards. I don't want a justice who is out of touch, I want one who is tuned in to public discourse and who is ultimately accountable to the people he serves.
I don't know why you assume an elected judge serving a six-year term will be incapable of delivering justice on behalf of minority groups. The lack of confidence in people that shows is disheartening.
But you have to remember, there is no guarantee that the 9 robed men/women will protect minorities under the current system. We really don't know anything about these people. We didn't elect them.
A justice has to deal with matters of law. If justices and judges were elected by the people like normal politicians, then they would be susceptible to the same flaws as elected politicans.
Judges that are appointed are preferable because they can make decisions without the fear of running for reelection.
So, should senators and congressmen and presidents be appointed too? I mean, if you don't believe in Democracy, what do you believe in?
I saw it in 2004. Then and after then, just as in the past, the show of strength for oppressing people was through the referendum process. Oh conservatives loved that. The masses got to vote whether to create a constitutional amendment to deny civil rights to people who were in a same sex relationship. Passed with flying colors. A constitutional amendment.
And then the courts came in and tore it down with their unelected fingers.
I think we have a fundamental difference of political philosophy.
That is clear to me. I have very much the same political philosophy as the men who founded this country, and there is not much I would change about the Constitution. I would leave the power Art. II, sec. 2, cl. 2 gives the president to appoint justices of the Supreme Court by and with the advice and consent of the Senate just as it is. I would probably also keep as is the provision of Art. III, sec. 1 by which justices of the Supreme Court, like other appointed federal judges, "shall hold their offices during good behaviour," although I am interested to see just what Sen. Cruz is proposing to change about that tenure.
Alexander Hamilton said this about the tenure of appointed judges in The Federalist No. 78 about providing for them to hold office during good behavior:
[This] is conformable to the most approved of the state constitutions . . . . Its propriety having been drawn into question by the adversaries of that plan, is no light symptom of the rage for objection, which disorders their imaginations and judgments. The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government. In a monarchy it is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.
I agree with Hamilton. The main problem I see with decisions like Obergefell is the doctrine of substantive due process they rely on. As the Court itself has discussed, it tends to lead to rulings whose lack of any reasoned constitutional basis invites the suspicion they are nothing more than arbitrary, undemocratic dictates. In fact that was the main reason the Court ended its three-decade-plus "Substantive Due Process Era" in 1937, as far as economic regulations are concerned. It is in reaction to the excesses of that era, during which the Court struck down more than 200 laws for violating an implied constitutional "liberty of contract," that ever since, laws setting maximum work hours, imposing professional licensing standards, or similarly regulating economic matters have been presumed constitutionally valid and have only had to meet the extremely deferential standards of rational basis review.
But when it comes to controversial social issues, the Court has shown none of that restraint. Due process has become a convenient excuse for concocting liberties that no one who drafted or approved the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 ever imagined in his wildest dreams. Maybe Congress should start viewing flagrant misuse of the Due Process Clause in cases like Obergefell as a violation of the standard of "good behaviour."
Why wait around and hope that the court will suddenly find "restraint," or why hang our hats on a subjective standard of "good behavior" which has been used to remove zero Supreme Court justices in my memory.
We need a mechanism to ensure judicial restraint, and to ensure good behavior... to where it is no longer a question of hoping and watching, but rather an active, democratic process.
It seems to me, no better judge of good behavior and ethical restraint exist than the voting American Public.
The OP is a suggestion to amend the constitution. I suspect if you asked a simple question via referendum to the Anerican public, they would answer "yes" rather resoundingly..."should Supreme Court judges be elected by the public rather than appointed for life by the president?"
Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Campaign : It's All Politics : NPR
Well so much for the SCOTUS ruling not being an election issue. I wonder how much traction the judicial elections amendment will get. I am sure the liberals would love another shot at Citizens United and Hobby Lobby in their lifetime. It might not go like Cruz thinks. There is a reason the founding fathers wanted to put justices above the sway of election cycles and political parties.
Cruz will be nowhere near the nomination and the 2016 election will be about a dozen other things before anyone even thinks or considers SSM. Unless the left is foolish enough to attempt to attack religious institutions, it is dead as an issue at the federal level, in my view. If the left is that foolish, all bets are off.
Cruz is Donald Trump with a law degree. They will both, hopefully, not find their way onto the stage for many or any Republican debates.
Yes I would rather have a judicial branch that is answerable to the electorate. Why shouldn't the people have a say in what kind of country they want to live in?
Think of it this way, 9 unelected judges over the American population means that each unelected judge rules over about 35 million people for life without seeking representation from them. It's the ultimate farce. No matter how educated they are, no one deserves that kind of power
The founders didn't want us voting on senators either, we amended the constitution to change that. This is no different. I believe in democracy and it's high time that principle extended to the judiciary, not just the executive and legislative branches
I don't think the will of the people and the constitution/law are in direct opposition. It's not an either/or. I want judges who base their decision on the rule of law AND who are accountable to the public whom they serve.
I think six year terms are quite reasonable in this regard.
Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Campaign : It's All Politics : NPR
Well so much for the SCOTUS ruling not being an election issue. I wonder how much traction the judicial elections amendment will get. I am sure the liberals would love another shot at Citizens United and Hobby Lobby in their lifetime. It might not go like Cruz thinks. There is a reason the founding fathers wanted to put justices above the sway of election cycles and political parties.
Says who? That seems backwards. I don't want a justice who is out of touch, I want one who is tuned in to public discourse and who is ultimately accountable to the people he serves.
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?