• 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.

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.
Watch those goal posts move. What you advocated was, and I quote:

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.

No it doesn't. It says nothing about the length of the term and that does not automatically mean Lifetime.
Absent any other limit, it DOES mean lifetime. One need only look at reality. You should visit sometime.

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.
Nice deflection. I've quoted the constitution to successfully prove you wrong. It's your turn to do some work instead of repeating your baseless opinions as if they were facts.
 
Watch those goal posts move. What you advocated was, and I quote:

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.
What you have tried to tie tother makes almost no sense... LOL

If I advocate for a One Term appointment/election thatis limited to 10 years that has nothing to do with my argument that 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. These are two separate arguments and I have kept them as such. You keep trying to tie them together for some reason to invalidate my point... all you are doing is showing that you can not argue very well.
Absent any other limit, it DOES mean lifetime. One need only look at reality. You should visit sometime.
No it doesn't. It just means that absent a Term Limit SCOTUS was allowed to set a Lifetime Appointment and nobody challenged it much like how SCOTUS pretty much set themselves up as the third branch with checks and balances powers in the Marbury v Madison Decision, if I remember correctly.
Nice deflection. I've quoted the constitution to successfully prove you wrong. It's your turn to do some work instead of repeating your baseless opinions as if they were facts.
I must have missed it. Which post?
 
What you have tried to tie tother makes almost no sense... LOL

If I advocate for a One Term appointment/election thatis limited to 10 years that has nothing to do with my argument that 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. These are two separate arguments and I have kept them as such. You keep trying to tie them together for some reason to invalidate my point... all you are doing is showing that you can not argue very well.
It shows that you can't make a coherent argument. They may be two different arguments, but you introduced the second out of the blue.

I must have missed it. Which post?
Try post #73. In which you said:
Roe v Wade is rock solid as well...

OK, prove it.
 
It shows that you can't make a coherent argument. They may be two different arguments, but you introduced the second out of the blue.
As a different argument.. You keep trying to tie them together... it is quiet clear that you are out of your depth here.
Try post #73. In which you said:
Roe v Wade is rock solid as well...

OK, prove it.


My arguments.

1. Introduce a term limit of 10 years to all SCOTUS Judges
2. Have SCOTUS Judges elected by the population not by Presidential appointment) after making all their Decisions transparent in one easy to reference candidate website.

You are free to try again and actually address the argument.
 
As a different argument.. You keep trying to tie them together... it is quiet clear that you are out of your depth here.



My arguments.

1. Introduce a term limit of 10 years to all SCOTUS Judges
2. Have SCOTUS Judges elected by the population not by Presidential appointment) after making all their Decisions transparent in one easy to reference candidate website.

You are free to try again and actually address the argument.
That's your opinion. You haven't provided a single shred of backup or logical argument.

Again, here's your challenge:

You said:
Roe v Wade is rock solid as well...

OK, provide a constitutional basis for Roe v Wade. If you need an example of how it's done, look to post #73 where I cited two sources to back my position.
 
That's your opinion. You haven't provided a single shred of backup or logical argument.
LOL. The way a debate works is that a person makes a claim (me about Term Limits and another about how Judges are chosen) and the other person (YOU) makes an argument against it... with some facts or evidence. You have not done that. You have offered nothing but some Goal Post Moves.
Again, here's your challenge:

You said:
Roe v Wade is rock solid as well...

OK, provide a constitutional basis for Roe v Wade. If you need an example of how it's done, look to post #73 where I cited two sources to back my position.
Again, you said Brown v Board was strong... I did not dispute that. I then said that Roe v Wade was strong. Again, the way a debate works is that I make a claim and YOU try to refute it. Telling me to back up my claim is WEAK. It also displays a critical misunderstand about how debate works.

You are in way over your head here mate... LOL, I gave you a second chance and you are blowing it.
 
Our Supreme Court is not oppressing people's rights... it is expanding them.
Well that’s a moot point because our court used to oppress peoples rights, but since Trump appointed new judges rights are being restored to the people.
 
We don't need more elections. We need SCOTUS to be above political races.
We need SCOTUS to be made inferior to the Congress so it’s a moot point.
 
Sure... just ask black people, women, Native Americans, immigrants, etc. LOL

Why?
So you’re arguing that if the Supreme Court were an elected body in 1787 than slavery would’ve been abolished the first year?
 
Hmm… perhaps you should not worry so much about the appointment of SCOTUS justices.



Very different system there. Probably easier to live with politically.

Firstly they are only interpreting relatively current written law, not a 230yr old constitution that only provides basic guidance open to multiple interpretations.

Secondly, I bet you can't find an average Kiwi who knows or cares about which govt appointed any judge. Their decisions don't tend to carry political bias because the laws are clearer as are peoples expectations of 'fairness'.

Thirdly, something like abortion would go through their parliament as a 'conscious vote' meaning that the vote is not along party lines and leaves the representatives free to vote in accordance with how they feel best represents their constituents.

And 4thly, something as big and dividing as abortion would likely be taken to a full public referendum. They recently did this with legalising cannabis and euthanasia.

Overall their system is much less politically dividing than in the US. In general they don't connect things like immigration, abortion, guns etc to political affiliation. Politics is nearly all about the economy. The divorcing of state from church is much stronger there. One simple irony for US readers is that in NZ it is more often the conservatives wanting more immigration. More focus on the economic benefits and less on the social impacts.
 
LOL. The way a debate works is that a person makes a claim (me about Term Limits and another about how Judges are chosen) and the other person (YOU) makes an argument against it... with some facts or evidence. You have not done that. You have offered nothing but some Goal Post Moves.
Untrue. Here's my argument, with evidence, showing how term limits work:
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.
And here's my argument, with evidence, showing that how judges are chosen is mandated by the Constitution and would therefore require an amendment to change:
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.
Again, you said Brown v Board was strong... I did not dispute that. I then said that Roe v Wade was strong. Again, the way a debate works is that I make a claim and YOU try to refute it. Telling me to back up my claim is WEAK. It also displays a critical misunderstand about how debate works.
From post #73:
1652117649438.png
I said that Roe v Wade has no constitutional backing. What you're asking me to do is prove a negative. I would think that someone who holds themselves as a debate expert would know that. I can offer the conclusion of several Supreme Court justices in the leaked draft:

For the first 185 years after the adoption of the Constitution, each State was permitted to address this issue in accordance with the views of its citizens. Then, in 1973, this Court decided Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113. Even though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the Court held that it confers a broad right to obtain one. It did not claim that American law or the common law had ever recognized such a right, and its survey of history ranged from the constitutionally irrelevant (e.g. its discussion of abortion in antiquity) to the plainly incorrect (e.g, its assertion that abortion was probably never a crime under the common law).....

The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision....
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/...tion-opinion-overturn-roe-v-wade-pdf-00029504


You replied that Roe v Wade had a "rock solid" constitutional backing. Now that, if true, should be easily provable.

Show the constitutional backing for Roe v Wade. Time to stop the "you don't understand" games, the insults and the evasion. Put up or shut up.
 
Untrue. Here's my argument, with evidence, showing how term limits work:

And here's my argument, with evidence, showing that how judges are chosen is mandated by the Constitution and would therefore require an amendment to change:
“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.”

This says nothing about length of office or no term limits and even if it did all Congress would have to do is to pass a law making future appointed justices have a term length and current judges would remain in office until they die or leave and the number would go back to nine, or whatever number Congress allowed Presidents to appoint. No Constitutional amendment required.

I did not say that electing Judges would not require a Constitutional amendment... that was you conflating the arguments. I said that electing judges by the populace is what should happen.
From post #73:
View attachment 67389764
I said that Roe v Wade has no constitutional backing. What you're asking me to do is prove a negative. I would think that someone who holds themselves as a debate expert would know that. I can offer the conclusion of several Supreme Court justices in the leaked draft:

For the first 185 years after the adoption of the Constitution, each State was permitted to address this issue in accordance with the views of its citizens. Then, in 1973, this Court decided Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113. Even though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the Court held that it confers a broad right to obtain one. It did not claim that American law or the common law had ever recognized such a right, and its survey of history ranged from the constitutionally irrelevant (e.g. its discussion of abortion in antiquity) to the plainly incorrect (e.g, its assertion that abortion was probably never a crime under the common law).....

The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision....
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/...tion-opinion-overturn-roe-v-wade-pdf-00029504


You replied that Roe v Wade had a "rock solid" constitutional backing. Now that, if true, should be easily provable.

Show the constitutional backing for Roe v Wade. Time to stop the "you don't understand" games, the insults and the evasion. Put up or shut up.
 
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.
1652121547370.png
 
Untrue. Here's my argument, with evidence, showing how term limits work:

And here's my argument, with evidence, showing that how judges are chosen is mandated by the Constitution and would therefore require an amendment to change:


From post #73:
View attachment 67389764
I said that Roe v Wade has no constitutional backing. What you're asking me to do is prove a negative. I would think that someone who holds themselves as a debate expert would know that. I can offer the conclusion of several Supreme Court justices in the leaked draft:

For the first 185 years after the adoption of the Constitution, each State was permitted to address this issue in accordance with the views of its citizens. Then, in 1973, this Court decided Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113. Even though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the Court held that it confers a broad right to obtain one. It did not claim that American law or the common law had ever recognized such a right, and its survey of history ranged from the constitutionally irrelevant (e.g. its discussion of abortion in antiquity) to the plainly incorrect (e.g, its assertion that abortion was probably never a crime under the common law).....

The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision....
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/...tion-opinion-overturn-roe-v-wade-pdf-00029504


You replied that Roe v Wade had a "rock solid" constitutional backing. Now that, if true, should be easily provable.

Show the constitutional backing for Roe v Wade. Time to stop the "you don't understand" games, the insults and the evasion. Put up or shut up.
FYI...the historical basis used in the leaked draft is crap. Abortions happened in every colony that was not based in religion (and you know they were happening there as well).
 
This says nothing about length of office or no term limits and even if it did all Congress would have to do is to pass a law making future appointed justices have a term length and current judges would remain in office until they die or leave and the number would go back to nine, or whatever number Congress allowed Presidents to appoint. No Constitutional amendment required.

I did not say that electing Judges would not require a Constitutional amendment... that was you conflating the arguments. I said that electing judges by the populace is what should happe

Nothing about the constitutional basis of Roe v Wade. This is YOU moving the goal posts. Again.

Apparently "Show the constitutional backing for Roe v Wade. Time to stop the "you don't understand" games, the insults and the evasion. Put up or shut up." wasn't clear enough. You haven't provided a single citation to back up anything you've said. You seem to think that your high opinion of your own opinions makes them absolute truths that you don't have to explain. That's not how debate works. Your ignorance of how the American legal system works is exceeded only by your dishonesty. We're done.
 
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.
Eh, no, then we'd probably end up with rapists and pedophiles and all the other scum that republicans like to vote in (although kavanaugh and Barrett pretty bad). What is needed is republicans to not be such dishonest POS who have no regards for this country's institutes all so they can enrich themselves and that of their buddies
 
Nothing about the constitutional basis of Roe v Wade. This is YOU moving the goal posts. Again.

Apparently "Show the constitutional backing for Roe v Wade. Time to stop the "you don't understand" games, the insults and the evasion. Put up or shut up." wasn't clear enough. You haven't provided a single citation to back up anything you've said. You seem to think that your high opinion of your own opinions makes them absolute truths that you don't have to explain. That's not how debate works. Your ignorance of how the American legal system works is exceeded only by your dishonesty. We're done.
I was getting ready for work and had to run out the door. More later...
 
Eh, no, then we'd probably end up with rapists and pedophiles and all the other scum that republicans like to vote in (although kavanaugh and Barrett pretty bad). What is needed is republicans to not be such dishonest POS who have no regards for this country's institutes all so they can enrich themselves and that of their buddies
Lots of rapist and pedophile Federal Judges out there then?
 
Having the people elect the SCOUTS is about a dumb as it gets. Do you not think that PAC's will get involved in trying to get a judge elected based on political bias. As weak minded as the majority of the voters in this country we would a sh** show for a Supreme Court. The Justices of the Supreme Court are suppose to be non-political in their opinions.
 
Back
Top Bottom