The US Supreme Court

[BirdinHand]

A SERIOUS RETHINKING OF THE SUPREME COURT



And you think, "He simply nominated justices"? And they were confirmed by a Replicant-Senate?

There are many things wrong with America's governance. And one of the most grievous is the "packing of the Supreme Court" by the Replicants.

The whole process dates from two-centuries and the Replicants can think of no other way to dominate law-making than to have a Supreme Court packed with "their people"!

Rather, the Supreme Court should be indifferent to political-belief. It must stand alone with no reverence in particular for any given political-party. It should be perfectly neutral and no PotUS should be able to nominate judges with the political-preferences of the US PotUS.

And ours in the US isn't perfectly neutral!

Here's a document that is well-worth the read. It is a report made by Kim Lane Scheppele and titled
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN GLOBAL COMPARISON

Excerpt:


It's well worth the effort for anyone who thinks that two-centuries of the present Supreme Court needs some serious rethinking ... !

Are you even a citizen of the US?

 

[code1211]

A SERIOUS RETHINKING OF THE SUPREME COURT



And you think, "He simply nominated justices"? And they were confirmed by a Replicant-Senate?

There are many things wrong with America's governance. And one of the most grievous is the "packing of the Supreme Court" by the Replicants.

The whole process dates from two-centuries and the Replicants can think of no other way to dominate law-making than to have a Supreme Court packed with "their people"!

Rather, the Supreme Court should be indifferent to political-belief. It must stand alone with no reverence in particular for any given political-party. It should be perfectly neutral and no PotUS should be able to nominate judges with the political-preferences of the US PotUS.

And ours in the US isn't perfectly neutral!

Here's a document that is well-worth the read. It is a report made by Kim Lane Scheppele and titled
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN GLOBAL COMPARISON

Excerpt:


It's well worth the effort for anyone who thinks that two-centuries of the present Supreme Court needs some serious rethinking ... !

ALL OF THE JUSTICES THAT HAVE EVER SERVED ON THE SCOTUS WERE APPOINTED BY AND CONFIRMED BY POLITICIANS.

Many of the decisions rendered by the SCOTUS have been politically motivated to the point at which you could also term them to be politically perverted.

Each and all of the branches of our government are, in varying degrees, political.

That said, they are what they are. For decades, the SCOTUS has been outrageously Liberal and now is experiencing a pendulum swing to a less Liberal, more Constitutionalist, direction.

Given the choice, I will rely on the wisdom of the Framers over the perversions of the corrosively Corrupt and Corrupting Party Elites of our current sewer filled with lying thieves.

Of course, I could be wrong.

 

[Lafayette]

Are you even a citizen of the US?

Yes, and I have never missed a presidential vote ...

A bit less than 5 million Americans live abroad. So, we could swing a presidential election.

If we all voted for the same candidate and, of course, that will unlikely happen ....

 

[Risky Thicket]

The UK only recently got a Supreme Court and as far as I know the people on it are selected out of the best judges and it's apolitical but I'll have a google and see what I can find.

Good on the UK.

If the US Supreme Court would ever be comprised of the selection of the best judges including only apolitical ones it would be due to a huge mistake.

Neither ruling party would ever permit the best and brightest and the apolitical to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

Republicans are such full of shit hypocritical scumbags.

Not only did he steal a justice pick and refuse to even vote on an Obama nominee, they also got rid of filibuster so they can put in 3 justices. Now fighting against fillibuster and trying to whine about it

Screw them and screw any asshole that defends their bullshit

 

[Evilroddy]

The Constitution was designed to be changed by the well defined amendment process, not by decisions of our nine robed umpires or mere legislative acts of congress.

ttwtt78640:

The marvellous irony being that those founding fathers were only able to create this iteration of the constitution by ignoring the amendment rules of the previous constitution - The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Sometimes the need for constitutional reform or adjustment forces the shattering of previous iterations of a state's constitution. History bites. But human institutions must evolve or collapse. That is the lesson of history. The trick is to avoid wreckless change without entrenching future collapse through institutional rigidity. It's a very hard balance to strike.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Lafayette]

Neither ruling party would ever permit the best and brightest and the apolitical to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

Neither political-party should ever be permitted to influence the appointments to the Supreme Court for this body to remain absolutely independent.

It's membership has been messed up enough as it is from past interference particularly from Replicant-supporters ...

 

[MaryP]

Good on the UK.

If the US Supreme Court would ever be comprised of the selection of the best judges including only apolitical ones it would be due to a huge mistake.

Neither ruling party would ever permit the best and brightest and the apolitical to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

I'm not sure how, but it would be better if our SC justices were chosen by an independent nonpartisan group.

 

[Lafayette]

JUSTICE FOR ALL IN UNCLE SAM'S LAND

I'm not sure how, but it would be better if our SC justices were chosen by an independent nonpartisan group.

Yes, and why not people like you and I who are American citizens?

Why does anything governmental need to be contained in that political mess called "DC" that cannot even seem to expediently bring to justice a mentally sick ex-PotUS.

His actions were declared publicly questionable by numerous psychologists during his administration. And nothing was ever done during his administration to bring the sitting-PotUS to justice on grievous charges of misconduct whilst in office ... !

The matter of his conduct as PotUS is finally getting to justice under the present administration when it should have been done immediately when he committed the offenses as PotUS! But, of course, it seems that we-the-sheeple cannot touch a sitting presidency whilst in office and controls the legal-system of the country?

Oh wow! What the hell ever happened to the notion of timely justice-for-all in Uncle Sam's Land ... ?

 

[Lafayette]

PACKING THE SUPREME COURT!

Good on the UK.

If the US Supreme Court would ever be comprised of the selection of the best judges including only apolitical ones it would be due to a huge mistake.

Neither ruling party would ever permit the best and brightest and the apolitical to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

There is no law that instituted a two-party system of governance (of America)!

We-the-sheeple are free to create a third-party - say, over the Internet. But, apparently we don't have the guts to do it. I am beginning to wonder why - when one-party seems bent on controlling political-processes does so with wild abandon.

Like "packing" the Supreme Court by a Replicant PotUS! ...

PS: The guy is sick, sick, sick-in-the-head and has been for a long, long time! A good read from Psychology Today here: Diagnosing Celebrities

 

[MaryP]

Yes, and why not people like you and I who are American citizens?

No, no voting on it. Too political. Besides, I don't know about you, but I know nothing about constitutional law.

 

[Lafayette]

NON-PREJUDICIAL LAW LEFT-OR-RIGHT

No, no voting on it. Too political. Besides, I don't know about you, but I know nothing about constitutional law.

Yes, it has become that - too political - because the Replicants have decided under their most conspicuously inept PotUS to date to "fool around with the law". Let's not forget that this ex-PotUS (who was NEVER elected by means of a valid majority presidential-vote of the American people) is going up against a court-trial for crimes much more important than "fooling around with law".

It is not the Dems who tried to "pack" the highest judiciary-component of American-law!

I have nothing whatsoever against a two-party system, having seen the waste of three, four and five-party representative-democracies in Europe. Forcing people to decide-by-vote between two-parties that both cover the political spectrum from Left-to-Right and back is OK. It's not the best but the best is difficult to obtain.

Regardless, meddling with the Supreme Court over the selection of the most qualified legally to sit on it should not be marred by political differences-of-opinion regarding the selection of candidates for that court!

And, in fact, the Supreme Court in the past has shown a high tolerance for members with pronounced political-sentiments that they should have kept to themselves. We-the-sheeple know a political-sentiment when expressed by those with the duty of interpreting American law. Their sentiments are so damn obvious in their interpretation of the law!

And there is not much that can be done about it. Even a Supreme Court should not have any predilection whatsoever regarding the law passed by fair democratic means. The law-is-the-law (good, bad or ugly) as expressed constitutionally by elected representatives! Period !!!

And it is up to the elected congressional-representatives to get-it-right (meaning non-prejudicial Left-or-Right law-making) or go play their political games elsewhere ... !

 

[MaryP]

Yes, it has become that - too political - because the Replicants have decided under their most conspicuously inept PotUS to date to "fool around with "the law". Let's not forget that this ex-PotUS who was NEVER elected by means of a valid majority presidential-vote of the American people is going up against a court-trial for crimes much more important than "fooling around with law".

It is not the Dems who tried to "pack" the highest judiciary-component of American-law!

I have nothing whatsoever against a two-party system, having seen the waste of three, four and five-party representative democracies in Europe. Forcing people to decide-by-vote between two-parties that both cover the political spectrum from Left-to-Right and back is OK - not the best but the best is difficult to obtain.

Regardless, meddling with the Supreme Court over the selection of the most qualified legally to sit on it should not be marred by political differences-of-opinion regarding the selection of candidates for that court!

And, in fact, the Supreme Court in the past has shown a high tolerance for members with pronounced political-sentiments that they should have kept to themselves. We-the-sheeple know a political-sentiment when expressed by those with the duty of interpreting American law. Their sentiments are so damn obvious in their interpretation of the law!

And there is not much that can be done about it. Even a Supreme Court should not have any predilection whatsoever regarding the law passed by fair democratic means. The law-is-the-law (good, bad or ugly) as expressed constitutionally by elected representatives! Period !!!

And it is up to the elected congressional-representatives to get-it-right (meaning non-prejudicial Left-or-Right) or go play their political games elsewhere! Like China ... !

Dream on. That's why I think an independent nonpartisan body should choose the justices. If you don't want politics played in the Court, don't leave it to politicians to choose the justices.

 

[Lafayette]

Dream on. That's why I think an independent nonpartisan body should choose the justices. If you don't want politics played in the Court, don't leave it to politicians to choose the justices.

Frankly, yes, I agree with the above proposition.

But when political-parties think that "getting their way" is tantamount to "winning the political football game" and they try to "pack the court in order to win" - then the law-of-the-land becomes an hypocrisy ...

 

[Lafayette]

EYE SKANS?

Dream on. That's why I think an independent nonpartisan body should choose the justices. If you don't want politics played in the Court, don't leave it to politicians to choose the justices.

I beg to differ. I don't want "politicians" on the Supreme Court because they come "with deeply felt political convictions" that will colour their decisions. That is NOT what the Supreme Court needs and did not have before the Tried-'n-true Replicant Trump was erroneously made PotUS!

America is the longest known democratic country on earth because it began in 1776. The rest of the world was led by a monarchy at that time.

Unfortunately, since then (more than two centuries ago) there are some-fundamentals that need correcting. Above all is the Supreme Court that will be shortly expanded and which needs to be redone! It's political-balance has come to prefer the Right rather than the Left - when regardless-of-either it should be in the middle!

The Replicants, who LOVE to mess around with politics in order to "get their way", must be shown that the SC is beyond "finagling". Which they try to do whenever they get elected into a presidency that selects it members!

The popular-vote needs badly to be made more "popular", meaning get rid of the Electoral College that is no longer necessary - the total electoral-vote for a candidate can now be obtained/stored and reported electronically. One finally effort and it will be made totally electronic (on-line by computer and with a personal voter Identity-Card number* and "identity-coding!)

What would be the personal-guaranty of genuine identity-coding? That is the key-question! Eye-skans are out of the question because irises have been known to change with age ...

 

[Lafayette]

SHARED PSYCHOSIS?

From the Scientific American, here: The ‘Shared Psychosis’ of Donald Trump and His Loyalists

Excerpt:

The violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol Building last week, incited by President Donald Trump, serves as the grimmest moment in one of the darkest chapters in the nation’s history. Yet the rioters’ actions—and Trump’s own role in, and response to, them—come as little surprise to many, particularly those who have been studying the president’s mental fitness and the psychology of his most ardent followers since he took office.

I'm no great-fan of psychological analysis. But, I must say that anyone as "weird" as DT, spoiled rotten by far-too-much-wealth from a very early age is worth considering.

It's yours to read or not ...

PS: And this one as well, a bit more elaborate: Psychology Today

Over 70,000 health professionals even signed a petition, saying “Donald Trump manifests a serious mental illness that renders him psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President of the United States.”

 

[code1211]

Yes, and I have never missed a presidential vote ...

A bit less than 5 million Americans live abroad. So, we could swing a presidential election.

If we all voted for the same candidate and, of course, that will unlikely happen ....

Unrelated to anything being discussed here:

it sounds like you have been living abroad for a prolonged period.

Are you in the diplomatic corps?

 

[TurtleDude]

Good on the UK.

If the US Supreme Court would ever be comprised of the selection of the best judges including only apolitical ones it would be due to a huge mistake.

Neither ruling party would ever permit the best and brightest and the apolitical to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

Scalia and Roberts were widely seen as the brightest two Appellate Judges at the time they were elevated. Alito was consistently seen as one of the best appellate judges in the USA as well. None were apolitical

 

[American]

A SERIOUS RETHINKING OF THE SUPREME COURT



And you think, "He simply nominated justices"? And they were confirmed by a Replicant-Senate?

There are many things wrong with America's governance. And one of the most grievous is the "packing of the Supreme Court" by the Replicants.

The whole process dates from two-centuries and the Replicants can think of no other way to dominate law-making than to have a Supreme Court packed with "their people"!

Rather, the Supreme Court should be indifferent to political-belief. It must stand alone with no reverence in particular for any given political-party. It should be perfectly neutral and no PotUS should be able to nominate judges with the political-preferences of the US PotUS.

And ours in the US isn't perfectly neutral!

Here's a document that is well-worth the read. It is a report made by Kim Lane Scheppele and titled
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN GLOBAL COMPARISON

Excerpt:


It's well worth the effort for anyone who thinks that two-centuries of the present Supreme Court needs some serious rethinking ... !

You appear to be one of the least knowledgeable people I've seen arrive here to discuss our Constitutional Republic. Your first three paragraphs are completely false.

 

[MAGAnificent]

A SERIOUS RETHINKING OF THE SUPREME COURT



And you think, "He simply nominated justices"? And they were confirmed by a Replicant-Senate?

There are many things wrong with America's governance. And one of the most grievous is the "packing of the Supreme Court" by the Replicants.

The whole process dates from two-centuries and the Replicants can think of no other way to dominate law-making than to have a Supreme Court packed with "their people"!

Rather, the Supreme Court should be indifferent to political-belief. It must stand alone with no reverence in particular for any given political-party. It should be perfectly neutral and no PotUS should be able to nominate judges with the political-preferences of the US PotUS.

And ours in the US isn't perfectly neutral!

Here's a document that is well-worth the read. It is a report made by Kim Lane Scheppele and titled
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN GLOBAL COMPARISON

Excerpt:


It's well worth the effort for anyone who thinks that two-centuries of the present Supreme Court needs some serious rethinking ... !

You lost me when you brought up global comparison. I have never been a believer in global precedent for deciding the makeup or decisions at the SCOTUS. I really don't care how the rest of the world does it. And I do not see the US Constitution as outdated or unworkable. And it's written in a way that includes the ability to amend as needed. However it cannot be done by a simple vote by the swamp rats in congress and the president. It must be ratified by 3/4s of the 50 states.

 

[Lafayette]

You appear to be one of the least knowledgeable people I've seen arrive here to discuss our Constitutional Republic. Your first three paragraphs are completely false.

Any other personal insults on a open DEBATE forum?

Come on- let the steam off! It's so much easier than thinking up decent counter-arguments to promote the debate ... !

 

[Lafayette]

You appear to be one of the least knowledgeable people I've seen arrive here to discuss our Constitutional Republic. Your first three paragraphs are completely false.

Your statement is kinda-sorta empty of factual evidence ... !

 

[Glitch]

The UK only recently got a Supreme Court and as far as I know the people on it are selected out of the best judges and it's apolitical but I'll have a google and see what I can find.

Every US State also has their own State Supreme Court. Similar to the US Supreme Court, the Governor of each State nominates a justice and the State legislature confirms or rejects the nomination. They are also appointed for life. While allegedly apolitical, they are always chosen by the political party in power to represent their ideology, which makes them political by default.

The same would be true in the UK as well. You are going to get completely different justices under a Conservative Party government than you would under a Labour Party government. So even if it says in black and white that justices are suppose to be apolitical, you can be absolutely certain that is never the case.

 

[Peter]

Every US State also has their own State Supreme Court. Similar to the US Supreme Court, the Governor of each State nominates a justice and the State legislature confirms or rejects the nomination. They are also appointed for life. While allegedly apolitical, they are always chosen by the political party in power to represent their ideology, which makes them political by default.

The same would be true in the UK as well. You are going to get completely different justices under a Conservative Party government than you would under a Labour Party government. So even if it says in black and white that justices are suppose to be apolitical, you can be absolutely certain that is never the case.

The applicants are selected by a neutral committee rather than by a political choice in the UK.
There's a completely different ideal about the UK supreme court than the US version as it's very low key and about pure law rather than theatre.

While the UK version has the same name they aren't the political football the US version is and it was designed to be apolitical.
One party can't stack the deck and it isn't about political point-scoring.

 

[Lafayette]

BATTLE STATIONS!

While the UK version has the same name they aren't the political football the US version is and it was designed to be apolitical.
One party can't stack the deck and it isn't about political point-scoring.

Once upon a time the US Supreme Court was similar. Then the Replicants decided that they could employ it to "play games" - iow, to obtain what they wanted. When Ruth Bader-Ginsburg died they saw the opportunity and stuffed the court with three new judges - all very Right-wingish.

The key difference about power between the US and Europe is that politics in the latter tends to be subtle whereas in the former nearly ruthless. The Replicants play to win - which is the prominent name-of-the-game almost everywhere in the US.

It's not that we like to play-the-game in the US but more so that both sides want badly to win-the-game.

And in the Supreme Court these battles will not stop tomorrow. They may well continue for a long, long time to come - which will not do a bit of good for making law in the US. It is really quite necessary to expand the Supreme Court to mitigate the fact that "party-preferences" could become an acute problem given that members are there for life.

EU parliament-members tenures are one year more than in the US. Perhaps the longevity of SC-members was a necessary balance in a two-party Congress that changes party-leadership often-considerably every four years ... ?