Approval Rating of US Supreme Court at 44%

[lawrocket 3]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/only-44-percent-americans-approve-supreme-court-143823818.html

Quote

Only 44 percent of Americans approve of the court's performance, compared to more than 60 percent of Americans in the late 1980s. Meanwhile, 75 percent of the poll's respondents say the judges' personal politics influence their legal decisions and 60 percent say the justices should not be appointed for life

I'll be one of the people who agrees that personal politics influences the SCOTUS. Considering that they are appointed by the POTUS and confirmed by the Senate, I don't see how politics cannot play a role.

But then I read the bit about "60 percent say the justices should not be appointed for life." I must say, I'll have a hard time finding a greater indictment of the nature and quality of American education in civics and history, and that the REASON why the SCOTUS (and federal judges) have lifetime appointment is so that their job security is not based upon public approval of their decisions. Thus, we want to have an unelected SCOTUS when the vast majority of the population has no problem putting Japs in internment camps. Or when the public approves of Lincoln suspending the writ of habeas corpus.

I'll note - the only time in the last 25 years that Democrats surveyed had a more favorable opinion than Republicans was when Clinton was in office and in a survey in July, 2010.

I cannot help but think that the very reason why the SCOTUS has such an approval/disapproval rating is as a reflection of the sheer politicization of government in general. But it's the very fact that the SCOTUS makes unpopular decisions that demonstrates the very reason for the lifetime tenure.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I cannot help but think that the very reason why the SCOTUS has such an approval/disapproval rating is as a reflection of the sheer politicization of government in general. But it's the very fact that the SCOTUS makes unpopular decisions that demonstrates the very reason for the lifetime tenure.

Have to think that Heller and Citizens United are prominent in the opinions of many of the left, and many on the right view courts in general as activist assholes, so pretty easy to see the drop.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

I cannot help but think that the very reason why the SCOTUS has such an approval/disapproval rating is as a reflection of the sheer politicization of government in general. But it's the very fact that the SCOTUS makes unpopular decisions that demonstrates the very reason for the lifetime tenure.

Have to think that Heller and Citizens United are prominent in the opinions of many of the left, and many on the right view courts in general as activist assholes, so pretty easy to see the drop.

Well, the pendulum swings back & forth. In the 1960s, the SC was vilified a great deal in the South, for example, over its civil rights rulings. It was not uncommon to see billboards saying "Impeach Earl Warren" in the early-mid 1960s.

Thus, the good argument for lifetime tenure. The founding fathers got it right when they made getting on the SCOTUS a political process, but staying on the SCOTUS more or less immunized from politics.

[quade 4]

I also don't think they should be appointed for life. Give them a mandatory retirement at 80 or something. I think it's stupid to have to wait until they fall over and die.

Think about it. When the Constitution was drafted, how old did people live? There may be a time in the near future when it's technologically possible to live to 150 or beyond. Do we really want "lifetime" appointments?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

When the Constitution was drafted, how old did people live?

Ben Franklin was 80-something when he signed it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Think about it. When the Constitution was drafted, how old did people live? There may be a time in the near future when it's technologically possible to live to 150 or beyond. Do we really want "lifetime" appointments?

while the average and median lifespans were much shorter, the healthier (likely wealthier) folks were not very different from now. If they avoided unfortunate illnesses, they did alright.

But didn't Franklin contract syphilis?

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

When the Constitution was drafted, how old did people live?

Ben Franklin was 80-something when he signed it.

Do you attemp to prove all your cases based on outliers? Do you think laws should be based on outliers or what is considered to be normal?

What was the average age of death of all the signers? According to this, it was just under 67.

http://www.google.com/search?q=average+age+of+death+for+signers+of+constitution&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari

Btw, mandatory at 80 would currently kick nobody off, although Ginsberg is getting close.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[wmw999 2,602]

So far we haven't had a justice try to stay on through dementia. I hope that doesn't happen; by and large I like the appointment for life, but it would suck to have to go through some sort of get-rid-of-the-sick-justice process.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Btw, mandatory at 80 would currently kick nobody off, although Ginsberg is getting close.

arbitrary age limits, esp when there isn't a known problem to solve, are pretty silly. I met Stan Waterman for the first time last year. 89 and still videoing sharks and little critters alike at 100ft under - 2 dives a day. Perfectly lucid, if deaf in one ear, in conversation.

[muff528 3]

Quote

...
I'll be one of the people who agrees that personal politics influences the SCOTUS. Considering that they are appointed by the POTUS and confirmed by the Senate, I don't see how politics cannot play a role.......

Not only do I believe that personal politics influences the Justices, I expect it. And I think that was the original intent. (Otherwise, why do we need 9 on the payroll?) I think that the "personal politics" of a Justice (at its most fundamental and simplistic level) is really derived from how he or she views and interprets the Constitution. Ideally, that fundamental interpretation will affect how or whether his ideological or sociological beliefs will influence any decisions. Also, I agree with the lifetime appointment. I think that helps to moderate any emotional or reactionary ideological swings in either of the other branches.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Btw, mandatory at 80 would currently kick nobody off, although Ginsberg is getting close.

arbitrary age limits, esp when there isn't a known problem to solve, are pretty silly.

Except age alone isn't the only consideration here. I suggested "80 or something," but would be up for something like "maximum 28 year term."

It's not just the "wait until they die thing," but also how influential into the future a Presidential appointee should be allowed.

This is one of those things none of the founding fathers could have possibly foreseen and it almost always bugs me when people see the Constitution immutable in those circumstances. It has to be a living document that adapts to the time.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Btw, mandatory at 80 would currently kick nobody off, although Ginsberg is getting close.

arbitrary age limits, esp when there isn't a known problem to solve, are pretty silly.

Except age alone isn't the only consideration here. I suggested "80 or something," but would be up for something like "maximum 28 year term."

It's not just the "wait until they die thing," but also how influential into the future a Presidential appointee should be allowed.

This is one of those things none of the founding fathers could have possibly foreseen and it almost always bugs me when people see the Constitution immutable in those circumstances. It has to be a living document that adapts to the time.

28 year limit is even worse - just like term limits. The reasons for the lifetime term are pretty clear, and 2 centuries hasn't changed this.

Again - it's like the voter fraud thing - worrying about non existent problems.

[jakee 1,611]

Quote

But then I read the bit about "60 percent say the justices should not be appointed for life." I must say, I'll have a hard time finding a greater indictment of the nature and quality of American education in civics and history, and that the REASON why the SCOTUS (and federal judges) have lifetime appointment is so that their job security is not based upon public approval of their decisions. Thus, we want to have an unelected SCOTUS when the vast majority of the population has no problem putting Japs in internment camps. Or when the public approves of Lincoln suspending the writ of habeas corpus.

Before you despair too much over the state of your educational system, you might bear in mind that lifetime appointment or elected SCOTUS aren't the only two options.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

I'll be one of the people who agrees that personal politics influences the SCOTUS.

Of all of my concerns with Obama winning a 2nd term, this is the largest. Several SCOTUS seats may come up in that term.

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

But didn't Franklin contract syphilis?

In France, I believe...

We are all engines of karma

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

I'll be one of the people who agrees that personal politics influences the SCOTUS.

Of all of my concerns with Obama winning a 2nd term, this is the largest. Several SCOTUS seats may come up in that term.

I don't think McCain would have made a shabby president, and I don't think Romney would, either. But of all my concerns with a Republican winning any presidential election, this is the largest, and probably the deciding factor of why I will probably always prefer a Democrat in the White House: because, to my sensibilities, about 80% of the Supreme Court justices appointed by Republicans during my lifetime have been a fucking nightmare.

Supreme Court justices: the gift that keeps on giving.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

It has to be a living document that adapts to the time.

It IS, there is an amendment process.

[muff528 3]

Quote

......to my sensibilities, about 80% of the Supreme Court justices appointed by Republicans during my lifetime have been a fucking nightmare. .....

Just curious ...which ones and for what reasons? I think repubs have appointed 17 to the Court beginning with Ike through GWB. So 13 or 14 of those have been "nightmares"? Is it because of ideological differences or because of actual rulings, decisions or opinions of cases that have been heard by those Justices? Which cases?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

It has to be a living document that adapts to the time.

The drafters of the Constitution recognized this and created a process wherein the Constitution can be amended. Hence, the Bill of Rights were Amendments to the Constitution - not included in the original draft.

What bothers me is the "reinterpretation" of the words of the Constitution. The Constitution, like all laws, is designed to give people notice of what is acceptable or non-acceptable behavior.


Let's look at the Fourth Amendment, for example....

The Fourth Amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

It is generally understood that the words mean what they say.

Of course, today is a different, right? And we have terrorists to worry about! They may be targeting us right now, and it is therefore IMPERATIVE that the government be able to gather information to protect our citizens.

The Fourth Amendment stands in the way of government intrusion. Should the right-wing choose to adopt the "living, breathing" Constitution bullshit, the Fourth Amendment would be discarded in the name of security. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment should be interpreted to mean that "houses" does not apply to "domiciles" or "businesses," "papers" does not apply to electronic data, "persons" is plural and therefore does not apply to individuals.

Thus, a person who is charged with a crime of "failing to submit for a consensual search" could have rightly claimed, "The Fourth Amendment means that I don't have to consent to a search." Now imagine the person spending twenty years in prison because the Constitution is living, and must change with the times, and everyone out there should know that this is not 1800.

A "living" Constitution that is changed by some arbitrary process is no longer a Constitution. And the protections it provides are no longer protections.

Be careful what you wish for, Paul.

My wife is hotter than your wife.