• 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.

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
122,656
Reaction score
27,412
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
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.
 
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 Framers were not stupid. They were masters of checks and balances.
 
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.

Sooooo...

Justices Eric Trump, Joe the Plumber, Lauren Boebert, AOC, Elizabeth Warren, Maxine Waters, and Peewee Herman.

Plus the dead guy that's been sitting there since the 80s and maybe Roberts.
 
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.

Hmm… perhaps you should not worry so much about the appointment of SCOTUS justices.

Judges in New Zealand are not elected into their role. They are appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Attorney-General, who is a Cabinet Member in the government. The Attorney-General consults widely before appointing judges, particularly seeking the opinion of the legal profession.

Judges are expected to act independently. To further protect the independence of the judiciary, Judges in the three highest general courts may not be removed from office or have their salaries cut.

Only lawyers may be appointed as judges, and only after they have held a practising certificate for at least seven years.

 
Uh huh...since it goes so well with the Congress Critters we elect :rolleyes:
At least then it is on us... not some corrupt politician screwing us even further.
 
Sooooo...

Justices Eric Trump, Joe the Plumber, Lauren Boebert, AOC, Elizabeth Warren, Maxine Waters, and Peewee Herman.

Plus the dead guy that's been sitting there since the 80s and maybe Roberts.
Is Pee Wee a sitting Federal Judge?
 
Hmm… perhaps you should not worry so much about the appointment of SCOTUS justices.



Our Supreme Court is not oppressing people's rights... it is expanding them.
 
Is Pee Wee a sitting Federal Judge?

That is not a requirement for a SCOTUS justice.

Take a quick look at article 3 for the requirements. You're gonna shit.
 
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.
We shouldn’t have a Constitution.
 
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.
Which is exactly why Justices are NOT elected - we have enough sycophants who'll say anything to get elected and then do whatever they want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
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 president should be picking SCOTUS judges, and not the federalist society.
 
Its interesting that so many people are shitting themselves over a leaked opinion draft by a Supreme Court Justice, on a case that has not yet been decided, but that is being written in accordance with actual consideration OF the Constitution...and that the idiot left and others that are shitting themselves over the memo are actually responding based NOT on the Constitutional law but rather their own bias and opinion...which does a pretty good job of demonstrating why the notion proposed in the OP is such a stupid ****ing idea. And BTW...if the OP considers that to be such a good idea, then you would probably have to also reciognize that the 'majority' opinion on issues like gay marriage were actually in opposition to the SCOTUS finding...and as such...gay marriage would likely never have been passed.

We do not yet know what the final decision will be. We DO know that the opinion being drafted by Alito correctly refers to the un or rather extra-constitutional findings that Roe was initially settled on. People don't disagree with Alito based on his opinion...they disagree with him based on their special interest.
 
Its interesting that so many people are shitting themselves over a leaked opinion draft by a Supreme Court Justice, on a case that has not yet been decided, but that is being written in accordance with actual consideration OF the Constitution...and that the idiot left and others that are shitting themselves over the memo are actually responding based NOT on the Constitutional law but rather their own bias and opinion...which does a pretty good job of demonstrating why the notion proposed in the OP is such a stupid ****ing idea. And BTW...if the OP considers that to be such a good idea, then you would probably have to also reciognize that the 'majority' opinion on issues like gay marriage were actually in opposition to the SCOTUS finding...and as such...gay marriage would likely never have been passed.

We do not yet know what the final decision will be. We DO know that the opinion being drafted by Alito correctly refers to the un or rather extra-constitutional findings that Roe was initially settled on. People don't disagree with Alito based on his opinion...they disagree with him based on their special interest.

Yep, many seem to want ‘good’ SCOTUS split decisions to be treated as Constitutional amendments and ‘bad’ SCOTUS split decisions to be overturned (by packing the court if necessary). With ‘good’ and ‘bad’ determined as aligning with their political bias. The same is true for state by state variations in laws - ’bad’ if that includes abortion or right to work laws, but ‘good’ if that includes minimum wage, “gun control”, closed union shop or recreational canibis laws.
 
Which is exactly why Justices are NOT elected - we have enough sycophants who'll say anything to get elected and then do whatever they want.
I said that their Decisions should be mae public.
Elect better politicians.
Let the people directly vote...
 
OK, but it seems that your legislature, rather than your courts, set abortion policy.

SCOTUS did not set abortion policy... it upheld that people have the right to choose about their own body.
The president should be picking SCOTUS judges, and not the federalist society.
Not at all...
 
They are.
Obviously... I mean if they are running it should be something given to voters not something that they have to go and find.
 
Back
Top Bottom