- Joined
- Sep 9, 2007
- Messages
- 15,254
- Reaction score
- 3,208
- Location
- Beirut
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Communist
so the federalist society helped the president appoint and senate-confirmed 3 esteemed court justices of the 9?Bart O'kavenaugh, Amy Cony/Barret, Neil Goresuch.
Any more stupid questions?
YOu've missed the whole point as usual. These aren't "esteemed judges", they're anti-American RWNJ extremist whack-a-doodles.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.
Hmm i sort of agree the president maybe shouldnt be the one appointing judges but im not sure what the alternative should be.
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.
Do they sit on the supreme court, or not?YOu've missed the whole point as usual. These aren't "esteemed judges", they're anti-American RWNJ extremist whack-a-doodles.
They are a large part of why the current supreme court (ridiculous) hereafter and forevermore known as "SCROTUS" is a joke with no credibility.Do they sit on the supreme court, or not?
so they are our esteemed judges! you not liking them doesn't change that lol your will means absolutely nothing.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're lying criminals, not "esteemed judges".o they are our esteemed judges!
lol their status does not depend on your personal opinion. Go ahead, keep the sour grapes!They're lying criminals, not "esteemed judges".
You're correct. It depends on facts. They lied to get appointed to their current positions. That makes them lying criminals.lol their status does not depend on your personal opinion. Go ahead, keep the sour grapes!
how do you know they lied? They're judges. They don't have to keep the same opinions all their lives(and rarely do).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".
Only G.O.P. POTUS nominate Supreme Court Justices who are obviously dishonest ,remove constitutional rights,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.
Because transcripts exist of their testimony in various Senate confirmation processes.how do you know they lied? They're judges. They don't have to keep the same opinions all their lives(and rarely do).
Hmm i sort of agree the president maybe shouldnt be the one appointing judges but im not sure what the alternative should be.
so they changed their opinion on the bench? They evolved on their beliefs, based on the evidence, like judges are supposed to 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 ...
Dude. You cannot possibly be that gullible.how do you know they lied? They're judges. They don't have to keep the same opinions all their lives(and rarely do).
The classic cry of "if I don't get what I want, we need to change the rules."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.
Wrong. I have been arguing this despite the Administration or make up of the Court for decades...The classic cry of "if I don't get what I want, we need to change the rules."
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. BULLSHITThe 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.
No it would not as a "lifetime appointment" is not in the Constitution.Besides, changing how Supreme Court justices get their jobs would require a constitutional amendment. Which wouldn't pass.
It was already working...Far better to push for a constitutional amendment to protect women's rights, which would have a chance of passing.
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 have been arguing this despite the Administration or make up of the Court for decades...
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
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.”No it would not as a "lifetime appointment" is not in the Constitution.
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.It was already working...
Wrong. I did not come to my view due to any decision but instead about what I consider to be a better system.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 argued that the people should be electing Judges... I said nothing about appointed Judges not arguing issues.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.
Roe v Wade is rock solid as well...No. Brown v Board has a rock solid constitutional foundation. Roe v Wade does not. That's the entire point.
Wrong. Having the people elect them does nothing impair the Decisions or Impartiality.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. I was talking about Lifetime Appointments not requiring a Constitutional change... and I am right. Nothing you have shown contradicts that.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.
We will see what happens...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.
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.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 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.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.
No it doesn't. It says nothing about the length of the term and that does not automatically mean Lifetime.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.
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.If you think that Roe v Wade has a rock solid constitutional foundation, please do cite the applicable clauses.
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?