- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?
As it is now, a Supreme Court (SC) justice is appointed for life. Should we change that and have them serve limited terms? If limited, should we allow re-confirmation for more than one term, or limit it to a single term? Also, if limited terms, how long?
Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?
As it is now, a Supreme Court (SC) justice is appointed for life. Should we change that and have them serve limited terms? If limited, should we allow re-confirmation for more than one term, or limit it to a single term? Also, if limited terms, how long?
I am fine with lifetime appointments.I do not like the idea of justices being beholden to the whims of whoever the new congress and president are. However I think the justices should be vetted more thoroughly and it should be easier to remove a justice who goes against the Constitution.For example a justice who cities foreign law should be thrown out, a justice who adds a restriction to an amendment that was never there before should be thrown out. Anyone with a brain in their head knows these people make rulings based on personal ideology and not what the constitution actually says.This is why supreme court rulings are often split based on ideology.
Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?
As it is now, a Supreme Court (SC) justice is appointed for life. Should we change that and have them serve limited terms? If limited, should we allow re-confirmation for more than one term, or limit it to a single term? Also, if limited terms, how long?
Liberals haven't gotten what they wanted from the court, so now they want new amendments to the Constitution. First an amendment restricting political speech that was actually voted out of Senate Committee, and now this nonsense.
Seriously, I haven't decided whether I personally approve of the HL ruling, but people are acting as if the sky is falling.
The role of the court and ideal of justice is to follow the law and to apply the constitution.Role of the court is to be fair and equitable. That's the ideal of justice.
The KKK was created by Southern Democrats. You may want to go back to history class.Conservatives aren't big on fairness. Hence, the Klu Klux Klan developed to keep blacks from getting involved in politics.
The role of the court and ideal of justice is to follow the law and to apply the constitution.
The KKK was created by Southern Democrats. You may want to go back to history class.
Role of the court is to be fair and equitable. That's the ideal of justice.
Conservatives aren't big on fairness. Hence, the Klu Klux Klan developed to keep blacks from getting involved in politics. Or, dislike of universal health care.
The Klu Klux Klan were all Democrats. And the Democratic party remains the party of race division.
The role of the U.S. Constitution (and, far more importantly, the ancient English common law that it governs) is to be equitable and fair, regardless of social class. That's what sets it apart from the High and Low Justices that dominated the legal landscape of other medieval societies (France) and culminated in the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars.
Justice is a universal moral concept. It isn't specific to any particular legal system. Rather, humans devise legal systems which live up to the ideals of justice (or fail).
Teaching the class, maybe.
Party =/= Ideology. Republican Party lost interest in progressivism and started appealing to conservatives in order to get the numbers in needed to remain a viable national level party and the Democratic Party went left when blue collar start liberalizing due to Unions. Civil Rights Movement put the boot in the old superstructure.
The Klu Klux Klan were social conservatives. Society was a certain way, and they wanted it to stay that way no matter what criminal acts they had to sink to to make it happen. What party they claimed has no relevance.
I would be interested in hearing why you think it does.
Nope, the shift in membership from Democratic to Republican was only about 8%. The racists and segregationists remained with the Democrats for the most part and just started using different means, like co-opting black leaders with tax payer money. LBJ is an excellent example of that.
Because Democrats are still pretty much the same, promoting racial division.
Liberals haven't gotten what they wanted from the court, so now they want new amendments to the Constitution. First an amendment restricting political speech that was actually voted out of Senate Committee, and now this nonsense.
Moderator's Warning: |
It ends now. Get on topic. And if anyone, specifically the original baiter, doens't adhere to this then expect points and/or a thread ban to be inbound |
Pretty much agree with this. I think it's the lazy way out. An attempt to "fix" things and still remain uninvolved.The reason why people think reforms are necessary is because humans won't do the right thing without a system forcing them to. Aka, congressmen won't refuse Big Money, so we should make term limits. Hey, how about the people refuse to vote for someone who is on Big Money's payroll and how about Congressmen take charge and refuse to deal with Big Money? Then we won't have to reform anything at all!
Reforms aren't the end-all-be-all of human political behaviour, and I don't know exactly when or why Americans started thinking somehow they were the solution to our problems. A law, program, or policy isn't even 10% of what makes society work. It is the willingness to comply with, carry out, and respect the law that makes 90% of society. Hence, Prohibition - biggest most expensive reform of its time - failed because Americans at every level didn't respect it, refused to comply with it, and acted against it in anyway they could, however small; they invented a huge industry resisting it, an unmanageable economic force the government could never hope to regulate or control as long as it was in the shadows. War on Drugs failed for similar reasons.
The answer isn't that we need to change how the Supreme Court works.
We need our Supreme Court Justices to be better so that there is no need to even talk about replacing them.
You don't need to ban alcohol. You barely need to ban anything. You need to know how to handle yourself -- become disciplined and strong willed enough -- so that addiction doesn't destroy yourself or others. That's a far more effective tether than all the rules, laws, and punishments in the world.
Pretty much agree with this. I think it's the lazy way out. An attempt to "fix" things and still remain uninvolved.
As far as limits go, whether it be political office or the SC, but especially political office, why do people think that their longed-for knight in shining armor will magically pop up and lead us forward?
The role of the court and ideal of justice is to follow the law and to apply the constitution.
The KKK was created by Southern Democrats. You may want to go back to history class.
I am fine with lifetime appointments.I do not like the idea of justices being beholden to the whims of whoever the new congress and president are. However I think the justices should be vetted more thoroughly and it should be easier to remove a justice who goes against the Constitution.For example a justice who cities foreign law should be thrown out, a justice who adds a restriction to an amendment that was never there before should be thrown out. Anyone with a brain in their head knows these people make rulings based on personal ideology and not what the constitution actually says.This is why supreme court rulings are often split based on ideology.
yes those Democrats were conservatives
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?