- Joined
- Dec 13, 2011
- Messages
- 10,348
- Reaction score
- 2,426
- Location
- The anals of history
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Please, continue to do so. I'm simply pointing out YOUR words and how fickle your opinion can be when things don't go your way. It's pretty clear that the only reason you support this is that the SCOTUS ruling did not go your way. So now you're trying to change the rules to the game while thinking it will help out your strategy to institutionalize hatred of homosexuals. It won't. Your suggestion has far more problems than the system we currently have. More importantly, the days of letting majorities decide what contracts 2 consenting adults can go into are pretty much over. :shrug:
Court justices are not elected because this is the check and balance branch of Government. This protects our rights. We are a nation of law. We are not a democracy so everyone is not elected. If the judges were elected they could be swayed by the electorate and not follow the rule of law when making a decision. They do not represent the will of the people because they represent the will of the Constitution and prevent mob rule. Judges are accountable to the Constitution not the voter. This system has worked from the beginning of the US. It will never change and this is good because it protects us all. The judges are being attack over this decision because some just don't like gays. Up until a few days ago most didn't even think about the SCOTUS now they dislike the justices but not really they dislike them for supporting a minority in their struggle for fairness under the law.We elect senators. Why not elect Supreme Court judges?
I would be much happier with decisions that go against me if I knew that they represented the will of the people. What I don't like is unelected officials wielding that much power. Only nine justices for 350 million citizens seems highly excessive in terms of how much power each justice holds, and he is in no way accountable to the public he purportedly serves. That concerns me greatly.
We aren't a democracy. We're a republic.
So... The founders, who were infinitely more familiar with, infinitely closer to and the subjects of... tyranny than you will ever be. The founders who cast a long eye to history and its lessons, who correctly identified many common failures to each attempt at government through the centuries... The historical constants of human nature... The funders whose greatness was not that they were smarter, or more moral, or even right... It's that they had the intellectual honesty to say, we who gather to institute a new government are just as flawed and ambitious as all that came before us, and all that will come after.
From that they set out, not to repeat past mistakes of others, but to attempt to safeguard us from ourselves and the tendency for all civilizations to peak and quickly burn out.
Or....
We can let a bunch of history channel educated wiki scholars pretend they're going to get one over on the founders by pandering to self interest
But, I'd be open to some negotiation... Like, I'd support your suggestion of elected justices if you supported taking all political donations over $5000 and super PACs out of the equation.
Court justices are not elected because this is the check and balance branch of Government. This protects our rights. We are a nation of law. We are not a democracy so everyone is not elected. If the judges were elected they could be swayed by the electorate and not follow the rule of law when making a decision. They do not represent the will of the people because they represent the will of the Constitution and prevent mob rule. Judges are accountable to the Constitution not the voter. This system has worked from the beginning of the US. It will never change and this is good because it protects us all. The judges are being attack over this decision because some just don't like gays. Up until a few days ago most didn't even think about the SCOTUS now they dislike the justices but not really they dislike them for supporting a minority in their struggle for fairness under the law.
If you're so good at finding posts of mine from 3 years ago, why don't you dig up a few that I've made this past two years about how I think Supreme Court justices should be elected?
Lol, that is great. I'm guessing you figured out how to follow that little icon that has been around for around 10+ years on this forum. Congratulations, I mean, I know you knew how to do that but it was funny watching you try and deny you didn't know how quotations in this forum work.
Anyways, my comment had nothing to do with the positions you support as they concern SCOTUS judges. I simply pointed out that your faith in the American people only seems to be around when they vote in accordance to what you want. That much remains true and there is no reason to expect such a stance to change if SCOTUS judges were to be elected.
Your fickle opinion on elected officials alone is enough to completely dismiss your statements on this matter as nothing more than wishful thinking from a young person who doesn't quite understand what it is they're suggesting. Nobody is going to agree to change how SCOTUS justices are put in place because Peter Grimm in Texas didn't like the results of one case.
:shrug:
But what does it mean to be a nation of law? The law exists to serve the people. There is no use for the law if it doesn't better the lives of the American People.
So if the law is in the self-interest of Americans, then I don't believe we need to protect the American People from themselves, as some of you seem to believe. Elected judges would be answerable to the public, and would be more likely to consider how their job performance affects and betters the lives of the American People as a result.... which is the purpose of the law to begin with.
Reported again for personal attacks. You know, for what it's worth, I didn't follow the link back, it just doesn't matter enough to me to go back and verify. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
I do believe in the American People, very much so. Maybe I had an angry moment after the presidential election where I questioned the American Public for voting for Obama (I voted for the other guy).... sue me.
Who around here doesn't get passionate when their presidential candidate loses? That doesn't change what I overwhelmingly believe. And, by the way, things happen over three years time. A lot of beliefs I once held have changed over the years.
The rule of law is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual elected government officials. The Constitution is the Law of the land. All things stem from this document it is the final word. The executive branch carries out laws. The legislative branch makes up laws. The Judicial Branch, their job is to explain the laws of this country under the Constitution. They must decide if laws are constitutional. This separation of labors makes checks and balances. One executive, two legislative, and one Judicial. Three parts are voted for one is selected and approved for life. It keeps the facets of government in line and creates order. You do need to protect the people from themselves. Thomas Jefferson said Democracy mob rules. The majority gets their way whether right or wrong. It would give the mob the ability to make anything law by a vote. It would collapse the Constitution and corrupt the nation. Pure Democracy does not work for long. It becomes IMO a dictatorship of the masses. Instead of one tyrant you make millions who agree on anything the tyrant. Law goes out the window and the US would have maybe lasted 50 years. It has been built for the long haul. The reason the justices are under fire I say again is not because the system is broken. It is because so many hate and or are disgusted by gays. The system works as is. This is why you are as free as you are.
That's great, however as with gay marriage and this recent ruling, you simply will not get your way. There are no attacks in my post and if there are I welcome you to point them out. I discussed the fickle attitude with which you treat the American public. If they vote according to your wishes: Great! If they don't, you think less of them.
That sort of instability in a position is the reason why nobody will ever seriously consider the election of SCOTUS judges. It's even less likely to be supported when the agenda - your agenda - is also based on your admitted hatred of homosexuals. Now you can give me all the 'benefit of the doubt' that you want, I don't really care for it; I don't need favors. However, you've been here long enough to know how to the forum works and how quotes are created and you did in fact think less of the American people when they voted contrary to your own wishes.
Your mercurial positions on the American people and your emotional partisan outbursts when your candidate doesn't win is exactly why SCOTUS remains a branch of appointed officials. They shouldn't be subject to the partisan wishes of people who don't like their decisions. They certainly shouldn't be subject to popular opinion on what makes a good judge. If you don't like the people being appointed to become SCOTUS judges, contact your congressional representative, state your disagreement, and get them to vote accordingly. If not, then tough nut nobody is going to change the constitution and 200+ years of convention simply because you didn't like a SCOTUS ruling.
Again, you're putting words in my mouth,
Here's an interesting in the New York Times on something similar: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/us/25exception.html?pagewanted=all
According to the article, 87 percent of all state court judges are elected. Also according to the article, the United States is the only major nation to do this: ie we already elect judges. So, if we're as free as you say we are, then perhaps the fact that we elect, rather than appoint, judges is partly the reason?
The point is, what I'm advocating isn't anything unprecedented or unproven. It would simply be an expansion of something we're already doing at a lower level and bringing it to the Supreme Court.
And, once again, if we can elect the other branches of government, there is no reason the judiciary should be seen in a different light. All three are supposed to check and balance each other, right?
I agree that a direct democracy is a bad idea (although I do think we should have more referendums like in Europe).... but nobody is saying that's what we should shoot for. What I'm after is equal representative government covering all three branches. A Supreme Court judge would be no more beholden to his constituency than a senator.
But the Senator certainly hands in the favors for votes promised to keep her or his job. You really don't want judges like this. My guess is you are not in favor of the decision the Justices or 5 of them made. Now you dislike the idea of them being able to defeat the mobs in the street. By the way The popular vote according to poles would have legalized same sex marriage anyway. The majority of voters poled were for Same Sex Marriage. It may have taken another year to make it legal and it would have been the main plank in the parties platforms so it is best out of the way.A Supreme Court judge would be no more beholden to his constituency than a senator.
Now you're venturing into the magical world of silliness. You yourself stated that you think less of the American people. That statement was based on who they vote. Those are words from your mouth. There is no reason to believe it wouldn't apply to SCOTUS judges if they too were elected officials. That is enough to dismiss the entire premise.
Underneath all the finger pointing, your argument really amounts to this: you don't trust the American Public to decide for themselves who ought to be judge over them. I do. You don't believe in the democratic process for electing Supreme Court judges. I do.
You not only don't believe in democracy in this instance, you are so strongly against it that you feel the need to attack me ad hominem as just coming out and stating your position would probably be ineffectual. Attack the messenger to silence the message, that sort of thing.
The message is democracy and freedom of choice. I'm for it. You're against. If I'm wrong, just come out and say so.
Actually, it isn't, that's why ad hominem is an established logical fallacy.
Within states some judges are voted on and approved by the people. Federal Judges serve and are selected. The Supreme Court is as it is as it was set up by the founders. This is as I say to have Judges who are free from the electorate. They can rule on cases as they see fit without backlash from the people. They rule according to their idea of what the Constitution means not what you or anyone else would like them to see.
The will of the people is not always correct and these 9 people fill the gap between tyrants and freedom. This decision was unpopular with many not as many as some decisions in the past but unpopular. A few days ago we would not have had this discussion because no decision had been made. Today we are having this discussion because you don't care for the result. I am guessing. If you had a hand in electing these judges they may see it more your way. I again am guessing from the type of dialogue we are having. Your last phrase is interesting But the Senator certainly hands in the favors for votes promised to keep her or his job. You really don't want judges like this. My guess is you are not in favor of the decision the Justices or 5 of them made. Now you dislike the idea of them being able to defeat the mobs in the street. By the way The popular vote according to poles would have legalized same sex marriage anyway. The majority of voters poled were for Same Sex Marriage. It may have taken another year to make it legal and it would have been the main plank in the parties platforms so it is best out of the way.
Utter nonsense. There was no ad hominem. I discussed your positions, not your character. If you want my thoughts on your character, I'd be more than wiling to give them. However, then, you'd actually have grounds to report me and I'm having so much fun watching you squirm and acting clueless about how the forum works. They statements would be entirely true, but they'd be ad hominems none the less and I'd miss out on this exchange.
With that said, the fact still remains. Your positions on elected officials and the people are entirely dependent on how they vote. That alone is enough to dismiss the entire premise. If you don't like who the SCOTUS judges are, petition your representatives and tell them to vote in accordance to your wishes. If they won't, vote for a different person next time. What you don't get to do is change the rules to the game because you don't like the outcome.
Underneath all the finger pointing, your argument really amounts to this: you don't trust the American Public to decide for themselves who ought to be judge over them. I do. You don't believe in the democratic process for electing Supreme Court judges. I do.
You not only don't believe in democracy in this instance, you are so strongly against it that you feel the need to attack me ad hominem as just coming out and stating your position would probably be ineffectual. Attack the messenger to silence the message, that sort of thing.
The message is democracy and freedom of choice. I'm for it. You're against. If I'm wrong, just come out and say so.
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.
Actually, it isn't, that's why ad hominem is an established logical fallacy.
And yet, I am still here and not a single mod has brought anything to my attention about attacking you. I'll keep you posted on the matter. However, like the outcome of the gay marriage case, you really shouldn't hold your breath. Your argument is illogical for the sole reason that it is inconsistent with the reason justices are appointed and not elected. This has already been pointed out by various posters of various leans but you refuse to acknowledge it because it simply refutes your agenda's see through chants for democracy.
Electing our SCOTUS judges would make our judges subject to partisanship. Though it is unquestionable that their political leans can affect how they vote, they're also above the petty partisan whims of folks like you or I. In other words, they don't have to promise anybody anything to get elected. That is the best possible argument for keeping things as they are.
If you don't like that, you don't get to change the rules and make them up to fit your preferred current partisan flavor. SPECIALLY when you yourself have made it clear that your faith in the American people exists as long as they vote like you do. You've made the best possible argument against your own desires for SCOTUS. There is no logical fallacy there, it's the only conclusion that can be drawn from your statements on the matter.
What makes a lawyer above partisanship?
Also, you can't tell someone what opinions they can/can't have, it doesn't work that way.
We're not discussing whether lawyers should be above partisanship. We're discussing discussing SCOTUS justices should be above partisan politics. Anybody with enough time to study can become a lawyer, few people ever become judges, less than that become SCOTUS justices. The people selected to become justices are picked in accordance with the powers granted to the president. Congressional critters - who may not even be around after next election - don't get to change that because they don't like how SCOTUS ruled on a matter that was important to them.
Nobody has told you what opinions you can and can't have. You're more than welcome to them. However, your opinion simply won't be taken seriously by anybody who has examined the body of your posts in their entirety. Your fickle appreciation of the American people is entirely dependent on how they vote. That is enough to dismiss your appeals to their wisdom as nothing more than political desperation with an agenda behind it. An agenda which has been defeated through this case. More importantly, those opinions and their instability are a pretty good reason to keeping the process of selecting justices far away from the grasp of like minded but inconsistent voters like yourself.
Everybody always thinks they win every argument on here, it's amusing.
I think it is pretty clear who has won the argument here and it definitely isn't anybody named "Peter Grimm". You suggested an idea that completely defeats the purpose of having at least one branch of government not being beholden to donors, partisanship and the false promises so common in Congress and the WH.
Everyone but you seems to have realized what a terrible idea it would be to change that and has rightly rejected it. Your continued appeal to the wisdom of the American people - which is entirely based on how they vote - has cemented the collective rejection expressed in this forum as the right position to take.
:lamo
Go to bed.
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?