Harry Dresden
Adamantium Member
yeah, someone totally and wholly unqualified to sit on the bench was confirmed.
so Jill....what is your thoughts on this?.....
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
yeah, someone totally and wholly unqualified to sit on the bench was confirmed.
HELL NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Judges should be elected and/or have term limits ... time for an amendment.
dont fuck with the system
you think its bad now, get politics more involved in the judiciary
agreed...with that said....i like cali's system of both appointed and elected at the lower court levels....balances the system the out....but not at the scotus level, no way, no how....i know cali votes theirs in for 12, however, making state sct decisions is vastly different that scotus decisions
because it tends to give more stability to the courtsHELL NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
dont fuck with the system
you think its bad now, get politics more involved in the judiciary
agreed...with that said....i like cali's system of both appointed and elected at the lower court levels....balances the system the out....but not at the scotus level, no way, no how....i know cali votes theirs in for 12, however, making state sct decisions is vastly different that scotus decisions
I don't see how it could be more political. Judges can be up there representing the political climate from 40 years ago because of lifetime appointments even though the political climate of America at the time is the complete opposite. Thats not right at all. At least not in my opinion. 9 people get to determine right and wrong? Makes no sense to me.
HELL NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Judges should be elected and/or have term limits ... time for an amendment.
dont fuck with the system
you think its bad now, get politics more involved in the judiciary
because it tends to give more stability to the courtsagreed...with that said....i like cali's system of both appointed and elected at the lower court levels....balances the system the out....but not at the scotus level, no way, no how....i know cali votes theirs in for 12, however, making state sct decisions is vastly different that scotus decisions
I don't see how it could be more political. Judges can be up there representing the political climate from 40 years ago because of lifetime appointments even though the political climate of America at the time is the complete opposite. Thats not right at all. At least not in my opinion. 9 people get to determine right and wrong? Makes no sense to me.
and a judge can be removed
there is a process
just for you, frankHELL NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Judges should be elected and/or have term limits ... time for an amendment.
dont fuck with the system
you think its bad now, get politics more involved in the judiciary
Have you paid attention to current events? You think the judiciary is free of politics?
because it tends to give more stability to the courtsI don't see how it could be more political. Judges can be up there representing the political climate from 40 years ago because of lifetime appointments even though the political climate of America at the time is the complete opposite. Thats not right at all. At least not in my opinion. 9 people get to determine right and wrong? Makes no sense to me.
and a judge can be removed
there is a process
I dunno. It seems more than not that the judges create law based on ideaolgy as opposed to reality. If something needs changed in the constitution we can change it as a country thru amendments. Other than that I dont think the constitution is as ambiguous as a lot of judges make it seem. Heck the right to bear arms was decided on 5-4 decision wasnt it? That should have been unanimous no ifs and or buts about it. But I'm not lawyer or constitution expert so Im sure a lot of people no more about this stuff in detail than I do but thats just my opinion.
and those way off the deep end usually have a rough time in confirmationbecause it tends to give more stability to the courts
and a judge can be removed
there is a process
I dunno. It seems more than not that the judges create law based on ideaolgy as opposed to reality. If something needs changed in the constitution we can change it as a country thru amendments. Other than that I dont think the constitution is as ambiguous as a lot of judges make it seem. Heck the right to bear arms was decided on 5-4 decision wasnt it? That should have been unanimous no ifs and or buts about it. But I'm not lawyer or constitution expert so Im sure a lot of people no more about this stuff in detail than I do but thats just my opinion.
Of course the Justices are political, but SCOTUS politics aren't like Congress'. They may (do) decide cases based in part or whole on ideology, but they're not doing it to butter up donors and get votes for re-election.
That's the difference. An ideologue is bad enough, but unless they're way off the deep end they can still be intellectually honest. A whore? Not so much.
and those way off the deep end usually have a rough time in confirmationI dunno. It seems more than not that the judges create law based on ideaolgy as opposed to reality. If something needs changed in the constitution we can change it as a country thru amendments. Other than that I dont think the constitution is as ambiguous as a lot of judges make it seem. Heck the right to bear arms was decided on 5-4 decision wasnt it? That should have been unanimous no ifs and or buts about it. But I'm not lawyer or constitution expert so Im sure a lot of people no more about this stuff in detail than I do but thats just my opinion.
Of course the Justices are political, but SCOTUS politics aren't like Congress'. They may (do) decide cases based in part or whole on ideology, but they're not doing it to butter up donors and get votes for re-election.
That's the difference. An ideologue is bad enough, but unless they're way off the deep end they can still be intellectually honest. A whore? Not so much.
She'll irritate the other Supremes with her insanely matter of fact rejoinders and lack of humor.
and those way off the deep end usually have a rough time in confirmationOf course the Justices are political, but SCOTUS politics aren't like Congress'. They may (do) decide cases based in part or whole on ideology, but they're not doing it to butter up donors and get votes for re-election.
That's the difference. An ideologue is bad enough, but unless they're way off the deep end they can still be intellectually honest. A whore? Not so much.
Also, if we elected Justices, they'd spend all their time worrying about re-election, like other politicians. It takes money to win an election, and it takes corruption to make money.
and those way off the deep end usually have a rough time in confirmation
Also, if we elected Justices, they'd spend all their time worrying about re-election, like other politicians. It takes money to win an election, and it takes corruption to make money.
Still, although not corrupt, I think they still are beholden to their ideologies and the people that put them there as much as any politician. Maybe not though.
Surely his sense of humor is what guaranteed Alito's appointment and confirmation to the Court.She'll irritate the other Supremes with her insanely matter of fact rejoinders and lack of humor.
Then I agree, she should not be there. I mean Alito is a crack up!
Interesting how that works huh?Interesting seeing the people of Western PA saying that they, not city people, are the backbone of America. No doubt, those same people back BP [corporations] over the people of the Gulf Coast.Dear God, what a sad day.Yeah....how shocking to hear that....you know, with "conservatives'" tendency to start blubbering, when they don't go-their-way.....
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxDgRr_Ynvc]YouTube - ‪Right America Feeling Wronged pt1‬‎[/ame]
Guess having old white men that believe in the Constitution isn't fashionable for a Supreme Court Judge anymore.
Actually...we really DO need more wise latinas.
vs. more dumb old white men.