Most Americans want to end lifetime Supreme Court appointments

[Lafayette]

Problem is, you are not debating.

The problem is that this forum has a software-problem.

Simply quoting someone and there is no place to respond beyond the quoted statement.

Anyway, the above statement is pure sarcasm and I leave you to it ...

 

[HangLow]

From Reuters: Most Americans want to end lifetime Supreme Court appointments

Excerpt:


It's a great idea, and will stop dead the Replicant manner of manipulating the Supreme Court to obtain its own ends ...

​

 

[Lafayette]

View attachment 67330213​

You-plural wanted a Replicant Supreme Court? Ya got it!

Thank you Donald Dork! (Now on trial ... !)

 

[Bodi]

The problem there is that the US has no "viable" identification method.

I like how you ignored my post... says a lot about your understanding of basic logic.

Problem is, you are not debating.

/Like

I don't think I've gotten someone to take their ball and go home within three posts ever before that's hilarious.

I did it with this poster in one... LOL

 

[PoS]

From Reuters: Most Americans want to end lifetime Supreme Court appointments

Excerpt:


It's a great idea, and will stop dead the Replicant manner of manipulating the Supreme Court to obtain its own ends ...

The reason why repubs can stack the SC is because they get elected as POTUS quite a bit. Libruls hate to play by the rules, so they want to change them? Silly idea.

 

[Lafayette]

I like how you ignored my post... says a lot about your understanding of basic logic.

/Like

I did it with this poster in one... LOL

Borrrinnnggggggg !

 

[Lafayette]

Most Americans cannot even name 5 of the Supreme Court Justices nor the chief justice. I don't put too much stock into that poll

Who cares what their names are?

Their names are irrelevant. What they DO is highly relevant ...

 

[Bodi]

Borrrinnnggggggg !

Really? And you have been here 6 years? LOL!

 

[TurtleDude]

Who cares what their names are?

Their names are irrelevant. What they DO is highly relevant ...

so you think people who cannot tell you who the justices are, can intelligently discuss various cases and the reasons for the opinions? I think not.

 

[Lafayette]

so you think people who cannot tell you who the justices are, can intelligently discuss various cases and the reasons for the opinions?

Yes! The principles-of-laws are in the text, and neither in the people who wrote them nor those that employ them. A judge does not adjudicate "principles" - they make rulings based upon the written-law. And that is NOT EASY since any administration with a majority in both houses of Congress can write the law any way they want.

Which is hellishly dangerous! And comparable of what happens in Communist-countries that MUST DOMINATE THE ENTIRE JUDICIAL PROCEDURE. And that is about as anti-democratic as any nation can get!

Now you tell me why knowing the name of SC-judges is important! It's their collective argumentation that is key, not how they spell their name.

For your edification (from here): Supreme Court Procedures

Typically, the Court hears cases that have been decided in either an appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals or the highest Court in a given state (if the state court decided a Constitutional issue). The Supreme Court has its own set of rules. According to these rules, four of the nine Justices must vote to accept a case. Five of the nine Justices must vote in order to grant a stay, e.g., a stay of execution in a death penalty case ...

The rest of this above linked-cite's explanation of how the Supreme Court works is very interesting and well-worth the quarter-hour to read it all. The cite's functional-description is worth a look-see ...