Supreme Court term limits

[yoink 321]

The Supreme Court were originally lifetime appointments (I think) to ensure that the justices didn’t need to get embroiled in partisan politics - They could be impartial without fear in their interpretation of the constitution.

Does ANYONE think that this is true now? Anyone?

I’m not interested in when it started happening, or who did what first. The reality is that the Supreme Court of the land is influenced by politics AGAINST the original intent.
If that’s going to be the case going forward then there need to be controls placed on the justices just as there is for the president. Term limits and public voting...

(Honestly I think this is a horrible solution but I’m not sure asking candidates ‘are you impartial?’ is a better one. This is one of those areas that is so complex and has so many ramifications that I’d much prefer the decision to be made by experts rather than Joe-down-the-pub, but what do you do when you can’t trust the experts?)

There is very little more important than how the law is interpreted.


I’ve said for a long time that I’d vote for any candidate regardless of party if they ran on dissolving the electoral college. I’m starting to think this issue is that important as well.

[AtrusBatleth 0]

The people have representatives. We vote for them. They have the power to appoint, confirm, and impeach justices. If you don't like what your representatives are doing (or not doing), then take it up with them and vote them out if need be. That's my opinion. Opening up SCJ to popular vote is asking for even more trouble and politics.

Max Peck
What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

[yoink 321]

I agree, which is why I said it was a horrible solution.

On reflection I think I'd prefer a covocation of judges from around the country to select the supreme court justices. If it was run the same way as selecting the Pope (closed door anonymous voting) it should at least limit the ability of politicians to influence votes.

"Of COURSE I voted the way you paid me to my Politician. Just bad luck that your guy wasn't selected I guess... "

[kallend 2,148]

AtrusBatleth

The people have representatives. We vote for them. They have the power to appoint, confirm, and impeach justices. If you don't like what your representatives are doing (or not doing), then take it up with them and vote them out if need be. That's my opinion. Opening up SCJ to popular vote is asking for even more trouble and politics.

Voting out a scumbag politician is one thing, but the damage done by a scumbag Justice nominated and confirmed by scumbag pols goes on and on and on and on...

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

I don't think there is a perfect solution. I do think the current SCOTUS and nomination process accurately reflect the current state of politics.

If Democrats want to survive, they have to take off their kid gloves and go to war.

[AtrusBatleth 0]

kallend

***The people have representatives. We vote for them. They have the power to appoint, confirm, and impeach justices. If you don't like what your representatives are doing (or not doing), then take it up with them and vote them out if need be. That's my opinion. Opening up SCJ to popular vote is asking for even more trouble and politics.

Voting out a scumbag politician is one thing, but the damage done by a scumbag Justice nominated and confirmed by scumbag pols goes on and on and on and on...

But it doesn't have to go on and on, that's my point. It's only a lifetime appointment because Congress LETS them stay, and we control Congress. If enough of us don't think justices are upholding the constitution, we have the means to impeach them. Sure it's never been done, but there's a first time for everything.

Max Peck
What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

[yoink 321]

AtrusBatleth

and we control Congress.

hahahahhhaaahahaha




Not in any way that matters.

[tonyhays 86]

One SC pick per presidential term(or two picks if you'd like). Replaces the one that's been there the longest.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

I don't think there is a perfect solution. I do think the current SCOTUS and nomination process accurately reflect the current state of politics.

If Democrats want to survive, they have to take off their kid gloves and go to war.

The Democrats already have!

their problem is they are not consistent fair or non hypocritical in there fighting.

I hope they keep it up because it's going to show in about 25 days what the effects of what they're doing has caused.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DJL 235]

Term limits will NOT make SC appointments less political and therefore politically shortsighted.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[yoink 321]

DJL

Term limits will NOT make SC appointments less political and therefore politically shortsighted.

No. But it WOULD limit the damage they could do in the long term.

The appointments are already political AND have no time limit. If you can't get rid of one, get rid of the other.

[yoink 321]

SkyDekker

I don't think there is a perfect solution. I do think the current SCOTUS and nomination process accurately reflect the current state of politics.

If Democrats want to survive, they have to take off their kid gloves and go to war.

If the Democrats want to survive they need to get off their arses and actually do SOMETHING, not just sit and whinge about how shitty Trump's government is. They're a fucking embarrassment at the moment with how they EXPECT things to go their way in November.

If nothing else every single state should be flooded with adverts from the DNC telling people to get out and vote; that the future of the country is literally in the hands of the people and that if people choose not to vote then they can't complain about the next 4 or 6 years. TV. Radio, billboards - whatever.

[DJL 235]

yoink

***Term limits will NOT make SC appointments less political and therefore politically shortsighted.

No. But it WOULD limit the damage they could do in the long term.

The appointments are already political AND have no time limit. If you can't get rid of one, get rid of the other.

The Supreme Court is always going to lag a bit in the Conservative vs. Progressive concept. On average there's one replacement about every 5-10 years. I'm not concerned with that kind of turnover. What I AM concerned with is the SC nomination being more entwined with the 4-year cycle of popular/fad politics.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[yoink 321]

DJL

******Term limits will NOT make SC appointments less political and therefore politically shortsighted.

No. But it WOULD limit the damage they could do in the long term.

The appointments are already political AND have no time limit. If you can't get rid of one, get rid of the other.

The Supreme Court is always going to lag a bit in the Conservative vs. Progressive concept. On average there's one replacement about every 5-10 years. I'm not concerned with that kind of turnover. What I AM concerned with is the SC nomination being more entwined with the 4-year cycle of popular/fad politics.

Given the current state then you're right. There's a lag and association with current political leanings.

I wouldn't be worried at all with that turnover IF the judges were selected regardless of their political leanings, but they're not, and that makes the Supreme Court a political institution as much as a legal one.

But there shouldn't be any relation between politics and the SC all - that's the point. John Marshall served 34 years as a chief justice. If he had been a political placement the way we're doing it now the amount of damage he could have done would be incalculable.
That's why I suggested the chief justices should be picked anonymously by their peers rather than by the government. If you can remove the politics from the selection then I have no problem with lifetime term limits. The SC goes back to being what it was originally intended to be.

Once the supreme court becomes a political entity the solution isn't to worry less about 1 replacement every 10 years. It's to worry more because it becomes a political arm without any oversight or accountability.

[JoeWeber 2,940]

yoink

***I don't think there is a perfect solution. I do think the current SCOTUS and nomination process accurately reflect the current state of politics.

If Democrats want to survive, they have to take off their kid gloves and go to war.

If the Democrats want to survive they need to get off their arses and actually do SOMETHING, not just sit and whinge about how shitty Trump's government is. They're a fucking embarrassment at the moment with how they EXPECT things to go their way in November.

If nothing else every single state should be flooded with adverts from the DNC telling people to get out and vote; that the future of the country is literally in the hands of the people and that if people choose not to vote then they can't complain about the next 4 or 6 years. TV. Radio, billboards - whatever.

But they're not. And even if they did somehow stumble into the majority in the House they're more likely to roll over and pee on their bellies than go to war. McConnell is already warning them to behave if they win and I have no doubt many will comply.

I can already hear Pelosi, gavel in hand, saying that they need to focus on 2020 and not make anyone mad over things they can't change. It's too soon.

It's harsh, but the R's are probably unstoppable for a long while. Sadly, it's not now, and for at least a very long while, not going to be the country I'd like it to be. Just the way it is.

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

But there shouldn't be any relation between politics and the SC...

While this would be nice in principle it is impossible in practice. The court is needed (as the founding fathers realized) because there will always be potential for conflict in interpreting ambiguous laws (and no law can be written to cover every possible circumstance), and more significantly there will always be circumstances calling for some "interpretation" of the Constitution. If things were cut and dried, with only one possible way to see things, there would be no need for the court. As it is, we have 9 justices so they can discuss and debate, bringing their experience and knowledge to the table. Of course when there is a "grey area" in a law individual justices will turn to the same personal principles and ethics that also govern their political leaning. Having principles is not the same as being a political partisan. And, of course, any President will nominate people who agree with him/her on principles.

The best (though not an easy) solution to many of these controversies is for Congress to get off their ass and produce well written laws, laws that are founded on constitutional principles and have as little ambiguity as possible. Want the EPA to regulate CO2? Make it a law, not just a regulation originating with the EPA. Want abortion to be available in every State? Pass a federal law, or if necessary a constitutional amendment. Elect politicians who will fight to pass strong legislation so the Supreme Court isn't asked to decide if clean air and water is subordinate to corporate profits, or if control women's bodies and lives should rest in the hands of religious ideologues, or if people have a right to marry the partner of their choice, and on and on.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Once the supreme court becomes a political entity the solution isn't to worry less about 1 replacement every 10 years.

I would suggest that the court system has become increasingly politicized in the US. GOP has purposely held up nominations until they were in a position to stuff the courts with people they like.

Previous administrations have at least tried to look for candidates that have a bit of a neutral feel. That has ended, completely. The lasting legacy of the Trump administration will be what they have done to your court system.

hence my comment earlier with the Democrats having to take off their gloves. The GOP isn't going to stop doing this.

[JoeWeber 2,940]

SkyDekker

Quote

Once the supreme court becomes a political entity the solution isn't to worry less about 1 replacement every 10 years.

I would suggest that the court system has become increasingly politicized in the US. GOP has purposely held up nominations until they were in a position to stuff the courts with people they like.

Previous administrations have at least tried to look for candidates that have a bit of a neutral feel. That has ended, completely. The lasting legacy of the Trump administration will be what they have done to your court system.

hence my comment earlier with the Democrats having to take off their gloves. The GOP isn't going to stop doing this.

Asshat Schumer just negotiated away several more lifetime appointments so his yo's can go home and campaign,

Get real Dem's. Our leaders are losers. Fuck the millennial vote. You need to get agro.

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

Asshat Schumer just negotiated away several more lifetime appointments so his yo's can go home and campaign,

Get real Dem's. Our leaders are losers. Fuck the millennial vote. You need to get agro.

That would make sense only if there was a way to both delay the vote on the nominations and win the senate. Since it now takes only a simple majority to confirm judges, and the Republicans have that and control of the process, I don't see how Democrats could block voting on the judges until after the new senate is seated. Maybe you can explain how that could be done? Also there is no way the Democrats could win back the senate without campaigning or while fucking the millennial vote. Maybe you can offer a convincing scenario about how that could be accomplished? The worst case scenario is having the judges confirmed while failing to take the senate (or even seeing the Republican majority increase), which is what you seem to be advocating.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[JoeWeber 2,940]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

Asshat Schumer just negotiated away several more lifetime appointments so his yo's can go home and campaign,

Get real Dem's. Our leaders are losers. Fuck the millennial vote. You need to get agro.

That would make sense only if there was a way to both delay the vote on the nominations and win the senate. Since it now takes only a simple majority to confirm judges, and the Republicans have that and control of the process, I don't see how Democrats could block voting on the judges until after the new senate is seated. Maybe you can explain how that could be done? Also there is no way the Democrats could win back the senate without campaigning or while fucking the millennial vote. Maybe you can offer a convincing scenario about how that could be accomplished? The worst case scenario is having the judges confirmed while failing to take the senate (or even seeing the Republican majority increase), which is what you seem to be advocating.

Don

Don,

I am not advocating a known solution. I'm advocating outright obstruction. I'm advocating torches, pitch forks and marching up the hill at dawn. I'm advocating any goddamn thing besides the current pansy assed "whatcha gonna do?" attitude the Dem's have.

The right has leaders who fight for their base. Whether or not their base are wrong headed or being deceived is not the point. The point is their leaders come off as fighters and they are winning. I can not name one Dem leader who comes off as a real fighter. And they keep losing.

Giving up more lifetime appointments, which is the last thing we should want at this juncture, as an expediency because "whatcha gonna do?" and we need to go home and campaign is not acting strong.

I just think that if the Dems want to motivate their base they need to start acting motivatingly. Instead, they act like it's more about keeping their jobs. During the judiciary hearings the rights base heard stirring oratory. We heard bluffing. I say give them all the Congressional Weenie of Honor Medal and send them home for good.

I hate what's going on and I hope somehow, someway we get off this merry go round but I'm starting to see this continuing past my lifetime. So, sort of, I don't care if some more lose their jobs uselessly obstructing the rights agenda.

Joe

[yoink 321]

JoeWeber

I am not advocating a known solution. I'm advocating outright obstruction. I'm advocating torches, pitch forks and marching up the hill at dawn.

i'm not sure I'd go that far, but the laziness and complacency the Dems showed during the last presidential election is why we're in this mess. They certainly need to do a whole lot more and a whole lot different.

You're absolutely right about the passion of the leaders of the republican party. The Democrats could certainly take that lesson. I'm also leaning your way on firing the whole bunch and getting in a younger more driven group.

Anyone can make a mistake once. What I don't tolerate from my employees or myself is making the same mistake again... That's what I'm seeing in the Democrats and it makes me furious.

[GeorgiaDon 380]

JoeWeber

I am not advocating a known solution. I'm advocating outright obstruction. I'm advocating torches, pitch forks and marching up the hill at dawn. I'm advocating any goddamn thing besides the current pansy assed "whatcha gonna do?" attitude the Dem's have.

The right has leaders who fight for their base. Whether or not their base are wrong headed or being deceived is not the point. The point is their leaders come off as fighters and they are winning. I can not name one Dem leader who comes off as a real fighter. And they keep losing.

Giving up more lifetime appointments, which is the last thing we should want at this juncture, as an expediency because "whatcha gonna do?" and we need to go home and campaign is not acting strong.

I just think that if the Dems want to motivate their base they need to start acting motivatingly. Instead, they act like it's more about keeping their jobs. During the judiciary hearings the rights base heard stirring oratory. We heard bluffing. I say give them all the Congressional Weenie of Honor Medal and send them home for good.

I hate what's going on and I hope somehow, someway we get off this merry go round but I'm starting to see this continuing past my lifetime. So, sort of, I don't care if some more lose their jobs uselessly obstructing the rights agenda.

Joe

I agree that the current democratic leadership is old, stale, uninspiring, and a thorough housecleaning is in order. Even here in Georgia where a democrat has a shot at the governorship, it seems to me that the political ads are watered down, way too underplayed. Even when they are talking about Republicans wanting to strip health insurance from everyone with pre-existing conditions they do it without conveying any sense of outrage. On the other hand the Republicans are running ads that make it clear they are completely untethered from any regard for the truth. They photoshop Stacey Abrams photos to make her skin super dark and her eyes and teeth super white to the point where she looks demonic, and then they lie through their teeth saying she wants to unleash sex offenders and armed violent criminals on our schools. They are really playing up the fear angle, and the appeal to racism and sexism is totally in your face. Who would choose an insane criminal-loving black female demon over a nice white boy?

But back to the issue at hand, how will pitchforks and marching up (I assume Capitol) Hill at dawn keep the Republicans from voting on those judges when they control the agenda and have a majority in the senate? Republicans are already playing up the "Democrats are nothing but an insane mob" angle; it's hard for me to see how proving them right will sway enough votes towards the democrats to help.

Unfortunately it might already be too late for the senate. Pelosi and Schumer should have stepped aside months ago so they could be replaced with dynamic new leaders. Not going to happen now.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[gowlerk 2,275]

Quote

The right has leaders who fight for their base. Whether or not their base are wrong headed or being deceived is not the point.

There is a reason for that Joe. It fires up the base and motivates them to vote. Until the opposition shows that it is motivated to vote it will be considered counter productive to engage in a fierce fight. Right wing voters will just get more motivated. They are afraid of change and there is no greater motivator than fear.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[JoeWeber 2,940]

GeorgiaDon

***

I am not advocating a known solution. I'm advocating outright obstruction. I'm advocating torches, pitch forks and marching up the hill at dawn. I'm advocating any goddamn thing besides the current pansy assed "whatcha gonna do?" attitude the Dem's have.

The right has leaders who fight for their base. Whether or not their base are wrong headed or being deceived is not the point. The point is their leaders come off as fighters and they are winning. I can not name one Dem leader who comes off as a real fighter. And they keep losing.

Giving up more lifetime appointments, which is the last thing we should want at this juncture, as an expediency because "whatcha gonna do?" and we need to go home and campaign is not acting strong.

I just think that if the Dems want to motivate their base they need to start acting motivatingly. Instead, they act like it's more about keeping their jobs. During the judiciary hearings the rights base heard stirring oratory. We heard bluffing. I say give them all the Congressional Weenie of Honor Medal and send them home for good.

I hate what's going on and I hope somehow, someway we get off this merry go round but I'm starting to see this continuing past my lifetime. So, sort of, I don't care if some more lose their jobs uselessly obstructing the rights agenda.

Joe

I agree that the current democratic leadership is old, stale, uninspiring, and a thorough housecleaning is in order. Even here in Georgia where a democrat has a shot at the governorship, it seems to me that the political ads are watered down, way too underplayed. Even when they are talking about Republicans wanting to strip health insurance from everyone with pre-existing conditions they do it without conveying any sense of outrage. On the other hand the Republicans are running ads that make it clear they are completely untethered from any regard for the truth. They photoshop Stacey Abrams photos to make her skin super dark and her eyes and teeth super white to the point where she looks demonic, and then they lie through their teeth saying she wants to unleash sex offenders and armed violent criminals on our schools. They are really playing up the fear angle, and the appeal to racism and sexism is totally in your face. Who would choose an insane criminal-loving black female demon over a nice white boy?

But back to the issue at hand, how will pitchforks and marching up (I assume Capitol) Hill at dawn keep the Republicans from voting on those judges when they control the agenda and have a majority in the senate? Republicans are already playing up the "Democrats are nothing but an insane mob" angle; it's hard for me to see how proving them right will sway enough votes towards the democrats to help.

Unfortunately it might already be too late for the senate. Pelosi and Schumer should have stepped aside months ago so they could be replaced with dynamic new leaders. Not going to happen now.

Don

Don,

It was meant as a metaphor for taking action. As I think about it now, it would make a great flag for the movement.

Joe

[JoeWeber 2,940]

gowlerk

Quote

The right has leaders who fight for their base. Whether or not their base are wrong headed or being deceived is not the point.

There is a reason for that Joe. It fires up the base and motivates them to vote. Until the opposition shows that it is motivated to vote it will be considered counter productive to engage in a fierce fight. Right wing voters will just get more motivated. They are afraid of change and there is no greater motivator than fear.

I get it Ken. That's my point, almost entirely. I'm saying the time for fucking around is past. Moreover, I reject the proposition that the Democrats have fewer manipulatable dipshits to motivate than the Republicans. Indeed, it would seem to be quite the opposite.