• 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!

The Case for Abolishing the Supreme Court

This must be a little liberal crybaby
 
TheRepublican said:
This must be a little liberal crybaby
Click to expand...

Not sure if he means what he syas, is a poe or what. AA puts out some of the most... interesting posts with views that are by far some of the most extreme and generally irrationale around.
 
The Case for Abolishing the Supreme Court
Click to expand...
Whatever merits such a case may have, pragmatically, we're farther from seeing such brought to fruition than we are from altering the first or second amendments.

I'm quite "down" with theoretical discussions, but there has to be some basis for thinking the theory can actually be applied to specific ends, and the end of abolishing the SCOTUS is just not foreseeable, not even distantly so.
 
Can't win an election? Abolish the electoral college. Pesky Supreme Court upholding that annoying constitution? Either pack the court with judges without such scruples or get rid of that too!

Then presume to prattle to the winners of elections about respecting democracy.
 
It's a bit premature to suggest abolishing the Supreme Court. However, if we're going to accept that the nomination and confirmation process is to be a completely partisan affair from here on out, then it at least makes sense to end lifetime seats. It makes a mockery of the court to stack it with unabashed political operatives who can never, ever be removed except by the most numerically improbable process ever.
 
Last edited:
In short, if the left can't bend the SC to It's political will, then it has no useful purpose. We should be doing the opposite, and move toward removing political issues from the court. Such issues are properly the role of the legislature, and not the courts.
 
Renae said:
Not sure if he means what he syas, is a poe or what. AA puts out some of the most... interesting posts with views that are by far some of the most extreme and generally irrationale around.
Click to expand...

What I mean is whenever the leftist doesn’t get their own way! Because the president can pick whoever they want. If the democrats doesn’t like it abolish it! The democrats want to abolish ice because somehow that’ll protected immigrants from deportation? Abolish the United States Supreme Court because somehow that became useless to the democrats because Kavanaugh is a Justice?
 
Jack Fabulous said:
I look forward to his next article, "The Case for Abolishing Congress" to be released shortly after November 6th.
Click to expand...

Why don’t we just abolish everything and have the democrats rebuild their own country in their own way? Oh wait I forgot that they are trying to because the last 50 years was a horrible mistake ! You know what keep your change and if you want to change something start with something who’s here in the United States of America!
 
One solution I have heard discussed is to have Term limits of 16 years for those on the Supreme Court. Each President would make two appointments, presumably in November of years two and four of each Presidential term.

It is an idea that certainly merits discussion.


Another thought, for those that like pie in the sky:
A Republican POTUS can only nominate Democratic justices; A Democratic POTUS can only nominate Republican justices.
This would prevent either party from having extremists sitting on the Court. Presidents from either party would select moderates from the other party. This may result in decisions that are more in keeping with the long term health of the Country.
 
There was an article recently that said AMericans were losing faith in higher education. Considering the minds that are thinking 'alike'...its not hard to see why.
 
Cardinal said:
It's a bit premature to suggest abolishing the Supreme Court. However, if we're going to accept that the nomination and confirmation process is to be a completely partisan affair from here on out, then it at least makes sense to end lifetime seats. It makes a mockery of the court to stack it with unabashed political operatives who can never, ever be removed except by the most numerically improbable process ever.
Click to expand...
Where was this talk when Kagan was put on the Bench?
 
rjay said:
One solution I have heard discussed is to have Term limits of 16 years for those on the Supreme Court. Each President would make two appointments, presumably in November of years two and four of each Presidential term.

It is an idea that certainly merits discussion.


Another thought, for those that like pie in the sky:
A Republican POTUS can only nominate Democratic justices; A Democratic POTUS can only nominate Republican justices.
This would prevent either party from having extremists sitting on the Court. Presidents from either party would select moderates from the other party. This may result in decisions that are more in keeping with the long term health of the Country.
Click to expand...
I would rather see a provision that disallowed any sitting judge from having a political party affiliation. Plus a term limit. A thorough investigation of the nominee.
 
Cardinal said:
What about Kagan?
Click to expand...
Kagan is as much a part of a political machine as anyone ever seated. yet she was voted in and no one seemed to be dismayed at the obvious and very political appointee. But now...with Kavanaugh (and based solely on his response to the rats in the senate that spent months attcking him and his family) suddenly there is an outcry.

Has anyone bothered actually LOOKING at his record on the bench? Does it matter that in a side by side comparison he voted identically with Merrick Garland on 96% of the cases he sat on?

The hysteria is ludicrous.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
I look forward to his next article, "The Case for Abolishing Congress" to be released shortly after November 6th.
Click to expand...

"The Case for a new Dictator!" People can't be trusted with their vote anymore since they picked the other guys! /s
 
VanceMack said:
Kagan is as much a part of a political machine as anyone ever seated. yet she was voted in and no one seemed to be dismayed at the obvious and very political appointee. But now...with Kavanaugh (and based solely on his response to the rats in the senate that spent months attcking him and his family) suddenly there is an outcry.

Has anyone bothered actually LOOKING at his record on the bench? Does it matter that in a side by side comparison he voted identically with Merrick Garland on 96% of the cases he sat on?

The hysteria is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Again, what about Kagan? You not liking her isn't enough.
 
Now, that idea may be workable. It would certainly shut down spectacles similar to the one we recently endured.
rjay said:
One solution I have heard discussed is to have Term limits of 16 years for those on the Supreme Court. Each President would make two appointments, presumably in November of years two and four of each Presidential term.

It is an idea that certainly merits discussion.


Another thought, for those that like pie in the sky:
A Republican POTUS can only nominate Democratic justices; A Democratic POTUS can only nominate Republican justices.
This would prevent either party from having extremists sitting on the Court. Presidents from either party would select moderates from the other party. This may result in decisions that are more in keeping with the long term health of the Country.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom