• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Presidents Should NOT Be Appointing SCOTUS Judges.

Bart O'kavenaugh, Amy Cony/Barret, Neil Goresuch.

Any more stupid questions?
so the federalist society helped the president appoint and senate-confirmed 3 esteemed court justices of the 9?

sounds like a public service to me.
 
so the federalist society helped the president appoint and senate-confirmed 3 esteemed court justices of the 9?

sounds like a public service to me.
YOu've missed the whole point as usual. These aren't "esteemed judges", they're anti-American RWNJ extremist whack-a-doodles.
 
Hmm i sort of agree the president maybe shouldnt be the one appointing judges but im not sure what the alternative should be.
 
Hmm i sort of agree the president maybe shouldnt be the one appointing judges but im not sure what the alternative should be.

How about the president nominates them, and Congress confirms their appointment ?
 
The Framers were not stupid. They were masters of checks and balances.

They weren't gods either and couldn't foresee everything, things have changed a lot since 1776, a lot of people died at 40 or 50 back then, life time appointments weren't that long back then. Maybe don't elect Supreme Court Justices, but what about term limits or having them retire at 75 (like the Canadian Supreme Court). No one looks like the American Supreme Court as an example to be followed, it's all based on who controls the Senate when some 80-something Justice dies.
 
They weren't gods either and couldn't foresee everything, things have changed a lot since 1776, a lot of people died at 40 or 50 back then, life time appointments weren't that long back then. Maybe don't elect Supreme Court Justices, but what about term limits or having them retire at 75 (like the Canadian Supreme Court). No one looks like the American Supreme Court as an example to be followed, it's all based on who controls the Senate when some 80-something Justice dies.

Pretty much

Justices on the SC are political appointees.
 
YOu've missed the whole point as usual. These aren't "esteemed judges", they're anti-American RWNJ extremist whack-a-doodles.
Do they sit on the supreme court, or not?
 
Do they sit on the supreme court, or not?
They are a large part of why the current supreme court (ridiculous) hereafter and forevermore known as "SCROTUS" is a joke with no credibility.
 
They are a large part of why the current supreme court (ridiculous) hereafter and forevermore known as "SCROTUS" is a joke with no credibility.
so they are our esteemed judges! you not liking them doesn't change that lol your will means absolutely nothing.
 
The system has for he most part prevented radical change without the people being involved and it usually taking time to happen.
 
lol their status does not depend on your personal opinion. Go ahead, keep the sour grapes! 😂
:ROFLMAO:
You're correct. It depends on facts. They lied to get appointed to their current positions. That makes them lying criminals.

I'll give you judges, because that's the position they lied to get, but "esteemed"? Not only no, but hell no. Liars to not get to be "esteemed".
 
You're correct. It depends on facts. They lied to get appointed to their current positions. That makes them lying criminals.

I'll give you judges, because that's the position they lied to get, but "esteemed"? Not only no, but hell no. Liars to not get to be "esteemed".
how do you know they lied? They're judges. They don't have to keep the same opinions all their lives(and rarely do).
 
This idea is ALSO STUPID.

THE PEOPLE should be voting who is a Judge or not based off of the Decisions they have made that are TRANSPARENT for all to read.
Only G.O.P. POTUS nominate Supreme Court Justices who are obviously dishonest ,remove constitutional rights,
and put their own religious indoctrination above the obligation of their oath of office and their service to the country.

Voters demonstrate a near fatal lack of discernment. (See Trump and all G.O.P. in congress except perhaps Mitt Romney.)

We've been without two serious, responsible political parties since Bush was "appointed" as a result of the Bush v. Gore ruling
and took the country into war in Iraq justified by lies.

We could do worse than assigning the task of nominating SCOTUS justices to appellate court judges.

The current Pope is a result of a similar appointment process, Do you regard Trump or Biden more highly than Pope Francis?
 
how do you know they lied? They're judges. They don't have to keep the same opinions all their lives(and rarely do).
Because transcripts exist of their testimony in various Senate confirmation processes.

Did Brett Kavanaugh give false testimony under oath? - The ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com › politics › 2018/09/17
Sep 17, 2018 — Democratic senators allege that Kavanaugh gave untruthful testimony at his prior confirmation hearings for the appeals court, ...

Five Times Brett Kavanaugh Appears to Have Lied to Congress...
https://www.motherjones.com › politics › 2018/09 › fiv...

While Under Oath​

Pesky documents keep surfacing to contradict the nominee’s claims about his past.​

Sep 6, 2018 — Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has made declarations under oath during his current and past confirmation hearings that are contradicted ..

Kavanaugh denies misleading senators in 2006 testimony - PBS

https://www.pbs.org › newshour › politics › kavanaugh...
Sep 5, 2018 — Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is denying that he misled senators in testimony when he was nominated to be an appellate judge in 2006 ...
 
Hmm i sort of agree the president maybe shouldnt be the one appointing judges but im not sure what the alternative should be.

I think we can make the SCOTUS less political by changing the lifetime tenure provision. If Justices were required to rotate out of the court, then there is less possibility of a justice "hanging on" until they get the Presidential/Senate combination they feel more aligned with for political reasons. If vacancies were to occur on a more regular basis it would be a more routine process.

I'm not so much in favor of an upper age limit though as it will then become the ploy to just nominate younger and younger individuals to be on the SCOTUS so they can be there longer. I'm more in favor of limiting the number of years of SCOTUS serve.

So...
^
Amend the US Constitution concerning SCOTUS tenure.

1. The senior Justice with 20 years of service on the SCOTUS will face mandatory retirement the year following a Presidential election cycle and each subsequent year which does not contain a Presidential election cycle on June 30th. This will include Chief and Associate Justices. If a new Justice has not been confirmed by October 1st of the same year, then the Chief Justice shall have the discretion of reactivating a retired Justice in accordance with paragraph #2. A Chief Justice cannot face mandatory retirement with less than five years in that role, however the next senior Associate Justice with a minimum of 20 years of service will then be required to retire. Only one Justice per year may be mandatorily retired. If two or more Justices qualify in any year, only the senior is required to retire.

2. In the event of death, incapacity, voluntary retirement prior to 20 years of service or vacancy, the Chief Justice can provide for temporary reinstatement of a retired Supreme Court Justice for a non-renewable period of one year or one term, whichever is greater. Once the period has expired, there is no extension. In the event of death or incapacity of the Chief Justice, the senior Associate Justice becomes the Chief Justice pending Senate consent of a new nominee. Requests for reinstatement must be made in the reverse order of retirement with the most recent retiree being solicited first. If that individual declines the request, the next most recent retiree is solicited. In the event there are no retired Justices available or none accept reinstatement, the court will revert to rules pertaining to an even number of Justices. The reinstatement of a temporary Justice ends when the incapacity or vacancy ends.

3. The Senate is required to advise and consent on Presidential nominations to the Supreme Court, if vacancy has been created for any reason, after 120 days from the official date of nomination there has not been a confirmation vote made available to a quorum of Senators in whole, then the nominee will be deemed consented to by the Senate and confirmed due to inaction.
.
.
.
.
Just my thoughts, these and $5.00 will get you a coffee at a Starbucks.
.
.
.
WW
 
Because transcripts exist of their testimony in various Senate confirmation processes.

Did Brett Kavanaugh give false testimony under oath? - The ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com › politics › 2018/09/17
Sep 17, 2018 — Democratic senators allege that Kavanaugh gave untruthful testimony at his prior confirmation hearings for the appeals court, ...

Five Times Brett Kavanaugh Appears to Have Lied to Congress...
https://www.motherjones.com › politics › 2018/09 › fiv...

While Under Oath​

Pesky documents keep surfacing to contradict the nominee’s claims about his past.​

Sep 6, 2018 — Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has made declarations under oath during his current and past confirmation hearings that are contradicted ..

Kavanaugh denies misleading senators in 2006 testimony - PBS

https://www.pbs.org › newshour › politics › kavanaugh...
Sep 5, 2018 — Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is denying that he misled senators in testimony when he was nominated to be an appellate judge in 2006 ...
so they changed their opinion on the bench? They evolved on their beliefs, based on the evidence, like judges are supposed to do?

Good, bravo!
 
how do you know they lied? They're judges. They don't have to keep the same opinions all their lives(and rarely do).
Dude. You cannot possibly be that gullible.

But just in case you are I have this bridge for sale...
 
This idea is ALSO STUPID.

THE PEOPLE should be voting who is a Judge or not based off of the Decisions they have made that are TRANSPARENT for all to read.
The classic cry of "if I don't get what I want, we need to change the rules."

The level of ignorance of how checks and balances work and why it's important is staggering - equaled only by the level of not understanding what the Supreme Court said with regards to Roe v Wade.

They didn't ban abortion. They said that it was not a matter for the courts to decide - that it should be decided by a body ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE, i.e. State legislatures.

Besides, changing how Supreme Court justices get their jobs would require a constitutional amendment. Which wouldn't pass.

Far better to push for a constitutional amendment to protect women's rights, which would have a chance of passing.
 
The classic cry of "if I don't get what I want, we need to change the rules."
Wrong. I have been arguing this despite the Administration or make up of the Court for decades...
The level of ignorance of how checks and balances work and why it's important is staggering - equaled only by the level of not understanding what the Supreme Court said with regards to Roe v Wade.

They didn't ban abortion. They said that it was not a matter for the courts to decide - that it should be decided by a body ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE, i.e. State legislatures.
Wrong. They reversed a decision to protect womens rights. It is like they reverse Brown V Board and say it is better for the States to decide Civil Rights Laws... oh, Mississippi wants to make it so black people can not go to school with white kids, well, that is a State issue. BULLSHIT
Besides, changing how Supreme Court justices get their jobs would require a constitutional amendment. Which wouldn't pass.
No it would not as a "lifetime appointment" is not in the Constitution.
Far better to push for a constitutional amendment to protect women's rights, which would have a chance of passing.
It was already working...
 
Wrong. I have been arguing this despite the Administration or make up of the Court for decades...
Ah, so this wasn't the first thing you didn't agree with that made you want to change the rules. I stand corrected.

You argued that issues like this shouldn't be decided by appointed judges, removed from the voice of the people. Well, SCOTUS agrees with you, which is why they turned it over to ELECTED state legislatures.

Wrong. They reversed a decision to protect womens rights. It is like they reverse Brown V Board and say it is better for the States to decide Civil Rights Laws... oh, Mississippi wants to make it so black people can not go to school with white kids, well, that is a State issue. BULLSHIT

No. Brown v Board has a rock solid constitutional foundation. Roe v Wade does not. That's the entire point.

No it would not as a "lifetime appointment" is not in the Constitution.
The second sentence of Article III, Section 1, says: “The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.” It’s pretty clear what’s going on here: this provision is designed to make sure that the judges are independent. They can decide cases according to what they think the law requires, without worrying about whether some powerful person—or even a majority of the people—will object. As Alexander Hamilton put it in The Federalist No. 78, judicial independence “is the best expedient which can be devised in any government to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.”
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-iii/clauses/45

It's exactly that judicial independence you want to remove.

The United States Constitution provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for." (Article II, section 2).
https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/nominations.htm

So, yes, it is going to require a Constitutional amendment to change. Getting an ERA passed has a far better chance.

It was already working...
Again, I liked Roe v Wade and am pro-choice. I was disappointed in the decision, so I read it. And as much as I hate to admit it, they make a pretty good case that RvW was the result of legislating from the bench and it's difficult to argue that it wasn't. Which is probably why so few are doing it.
 
Last edited:
Ah, so this wasn't the first thing you didn't agree with that made you want to change the rules. I stand corrected.
Wrong. I did not come to my view due to any decision but instead about what I consider to be a better system.

It is about fairness, functionality and the people.
You argued that issues like this shouldn't be decided by appointed judges, removed from the voice of the people. Well, SCOTUS agrees with you, which is why they turned it over to ELECTED state legislatures.
Wrong. I argued that the people should be electing Judges... I said nothing about appointed Judges not arguing issues.
No. Brown v Board has a rock solid constitutional foundation. Roe v Wade does not. That's the entire point.
Roe v Wade is rock solid as well...
The second sentence of Article III, Section 1, says: “The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.” It’s pretty clear what’s going on here: this provision is designed to make sure that the judges are independent. They can decide cases according to what they think the law requires, without worrying about whether some powerful person—or even a majority of the people—will object. As Alexander Hamilton put it in The Federalist No. 78, judicial independence “is the best expedient which can be devised in any government to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.”
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-iii/clauses/45

It's exactly that judicial independence you want to remove.
Wrong. Having the people elect them does nothing impair the Decisions or Impartiality.
The United States Constitution provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for." (Article II, section 2).
https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/nominations.htm

So, yes, it is going to require a Constitutional amendment to change. Getting an ERA passed has a far better chance.
Wrong. I was talking about Lifetime Appointments not requiring a Constitutional change... and I am right. Nothing you have shown contradicts that.
Again, I liked Roe v Wade and am pro-choice. I was disappointed in the decision, so I read it. And as much as I hate to admit it, they make a pretty good case that RvW was the result of legislating from the bench and it's difficult to argue that it wasn't. Which is probably why so few are doing it.
We will see what happens...
 
Wrong. I did not come to my view due to any decision but instead about what I consider to be a better system.

It is about fairness, functionality and the people.

Wrong. I argued that the people should be electing Judges... I said nothing about appointed Judges not arguing issues.

Roe v Wade is rock solid as well...

Wrong. Having the people elect them does nothing impair the Decisions or Impartiality.

Wrong. I was talking about Lifetime Appointments not requiring a Constitutional change... and I am right. Nothing you have shown contradicts that.

We will see what happens...
Clearly you don't understand how judicial independence works. The idea is that once appointed, the judges do not have to worry about being re-elected and are free to judge the law without outside pressure.

The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, means that the judges hold the job for as long as they want absent any impeachable bad behavior.

If you think that Roe v Wade has a rock solid constitutional foundation, please do cite the applicable clauses.
 
Clearly you don't understand how judicial independence works. The idea is that once appointed, the judges do not have to worry about being re-elected and are free to judge the law without outside pressure.
Clearly I do and that is why I advocate for a One Term appointment/election thatis limited to 10 years... maybe 15-20 if a good argument can be made.
The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, means that the judges hold the job for as long as they want absent any impeachable bad behavior.
No it doesn't. It says nothing about the length of the term and that does not automatically mean Lifetime.
If you think that Roe v Wade has a rock solid constitutional foundation, please do cite the applicable clauses.
You are the one that said that it didn't. What does one Decision that is rock solid have that Roe does not have, in you opinion.
 
Back
Top Bottom