JumpinJack
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2013
- Messages
- 6,628
- Reaction score
- 2,971
- Location
- Dallas, TX
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I just found this picture of the Cruz campaign plane.
View attachment 67186471
Psst.... its a joke. That isn't really the Cruz campaign plane. We all know before you can go "down in flames" you first must get airborne. We know this is not the Cruz plane because his campaign is not now, nor will it ever be, airborne.
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.
You seem to be advocating the removal of the checks and balances system created by our constitution. In other words, the legislature rules supreme without any objective restraint.
Subjugating the federal judiciary to elections puts them in the same position as the legislature as far as being subject to the whim of popular opinion (or in the case of marriage equality, a very loud but not so popular opinion).
You, and Ted Cruise seem to be advocating that we change our entire system of governance from a constitutional republic to an absolute democracy where majority rules regardless of the implications on civil rights.
I'm not sure you are following your assertions to their logical conclusions. If we remove the judicial branch from the system of checks and balances, what will replace it? The will of the people? That would be an absolute democracy. In this case, why even bother with judges at all, just put everything up to popular vote and to heck with restraint.
As has been pointed out, it's highly likely that such a move would backfire on those who propose it. Taking recent polls into account, how do you think the nation as a whole would vote on marriage equality today?
Yes, let's have judges who are elected! That way, Exxon gets the rulings IT wants, and the animal rights organizations can get the rulings THEY want, and Big Pharma can get the rulings IT wants. Just like our other politicians, who are bought and paid for by special interests. Yay!
No, you don't. You don't understand politics at all. You WANT people who aren't beholden to anyone to decide cases based on the law, without fear of losing funding for their next election, or in fear of not getting that fat job with Big Pharma after they leave their judgeship.
Checks and balances are what make our constitution and our system of government so great. What is being proposed here, allowing people to democratically elect justices rather than have them appointed for us, would IMPROVE our checks and balances!
That's why it's such a great idea. It would re balance government in such a way that freedom and liberty and democracy win.
So, you are a conservative that has found fault with the Constitution.... interesting!
Sorry, the idea of electing the SCOTUS seems something close to asinine. That is just what we need: politicians running $1B campaigns to get elected to something, that in a post-popular vote America, would really just be an 9 man legislature.
Fortunately, our founding fathers were geniuses. In creating the appointed for-life SCOTUS, they established a branch of government that generally protects us from our short-sided whims and knee-jerk reactions... and, most importantly, protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority (which would not happen if they are elected by the majority).....
The idea of electing the SCOTUS would render it almost useless to its mission.
It is a very stupid idea. Judges are not politicians, nor should they lower themselves to fundraising (and being beholden to their donors) and running for office.
This system works, besides, if some liberal judges got elected you'd be whining and crying for change.
Running for office is not the bad thing you seem to think it is. It's part of the democratic process.... getting your message out there to voters. Our political process is part of what makes America great!
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.
I favor holding Supreme Court elections just like we elect senators...in rotating 6 year terms.
Reported for personal attack. Keep it civil and on topic, please.
My goodness, I can't verify that quote was even me. That would've been 3 years ago if so.
Our founding fathers were the greatest generation of political thinkers collected under one roof, perhaps in the history of the world.
It would be a disservice to them, then if the rest of us rested on their laurels and took the fact that we're born Americans as license to sit around and be lazy. We still need to actively participate in our government and continually maintain the vision they left with us: that we should have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.... a government with proper checks and balances.
Lol? Ummm okay:
1. Click the little blue icon next to your name in the posted quote. It's there.
2. There was no personal attack. I simply pointed out the fact that you only hitch your wagon to the American people when the elections seem to be going your way. If they're not, your 'trust' in the American people is questionable.
3. Lol, if you could kindle point out the personal attack, I'll be waiting.
So, you are for a living, breathing Constitution that is responsive to the times?
You're trying to take a discussion on a particular topic... in this case, the question whether Supreme Court judges should be elected.... and you're trying to support your point by making the argument about me and attacking my character.
That's an ad hominem. Win the discussion on the merits of your arguments, don't resort to mud slinging.
I'm not going to respond to any personal accusations against me. I'm not even going to ask why or how you dug up a post I allegedly made 3 years ago (again, I can't validate that I even made it) after the Obama election, and I'm certainly not going to give any explanation for it.
You're lucky you didn't get infracted for doing that, to be honest.
Nope, I'm simply saying that your opinion is subject to change depending on how the elections go. That much remains true and is proven by how little faith you seem to have in the American people when things don't go your way. There is no argument there, it's a fact. :shrug:
Lmao, there is nothing to be infracted over. The post is by you and the link in it leads directly to YOUR statements in a different thread where the elections didn't go your way. You've been around long enough to know how this forum works, that you're now pretending you didn't say that or that you don't know how to follow links is pretty funny. Anyways Peter, your dream of an elected SCOTUS simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Hell, you yourself seem to have admitted how little faith you have in the American people after every election.
You don't seem to understand or realize or see the difference between debating a topic and making it about the person.
It's an ad hominem fallacy, look it up. I reported you again.
This is why the US is a Constitutional republic with a representative democracy because the founders decided the majority may not always be correct. Jefferson called Pure Democracy Mob Rules. This sounds like what you would like. I am happy as it is even if all the decisions don't go my way.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
What I find hilarious is if some other politician had proposed this a week ago you probably would have opposed it. You are angry that a group of people you find disgusting and who you hate has been given the right to marriage and so you want to fire the judges who did it. And feel free to hit the report button if you like, but I am merely repeating what you shared days ago and it is fair to consider a poster's motivations when he suddenly has an opinion on judicial lifetime appointments when he never really had one before. In fact, had the ruling gone the other way and those nine robed figures declared there was no right to same-sex marriage you would have been very happy and content with that ruling lording over 350 million of us and you would not even be talking about judicial elections. This is about your hatred of gays. Nothing else.
Welcome to America. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. The Constitution is the will of the people, not a simple majority vote. In our country the rights of the minority are protected from the tyranny of a majority.
You don't seem to understand or realize or see the difference between debating a topic and making it about the person.
It's an ad hominem fallacy, look it up. I reported you again.
What I find hilarious is if some other politician had proposed this a week ago you probably would have opposed it. You are angry that a group of people you find disgusting and who you hate has been given the right to marriage and so you want to fire the judges who did it. And feel free to hit the report button if you like, but I am merely repeating what you shared days ago and it is fair to consider a poster's motivations when he suddenly has an opinion on judicial lifetime appointments when he never really had one before. In fact, had the ruling gone the other way and those nine robed figures declared there was no right to same-sex marriage you would have been very happy and content with that ruling lording over 350 million of us and you would not even be talking about judicial elections. This is about your hatred of gays. Nothing else.
Welcome to America. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. The Constitution is the will of the people, not a simple majority vote. In our country the rights of the minority are protected from the tyranny of a majority.
This is why the US is a Constitutional republic with a representative democracy because the founders decided the majority may not always be correct. Jefferson called Pure Democracy Mob Rules. This sounds like what you would like. I am happy as it is even if all the decisions don't go my way.
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?