High time to revamp the Supreme Court

ScreamingEagle

Gold Member
Jul 5, 2004
13,399
1,706
245
It's obvious the Court has become political in nature as they chip away at our Constitution.....therefore we need to change the Court's parameters....

some suggestions....

1) enlarging the Court to say....19 members...

2) changing tenure to maybe 10 or 20 years...

3) allow for smart non-lawyer appointees....

4) insist that members adhere to the letter of the Constitution or be subject to dismissal....


agree or disagree....?
 
Last edited:
It's obvious the Court has become political in nature as they chip away at our Constitution.....therefore we need to change the Court's parameters....

some suggestions....

1) enlarging the Court to say....19 members...

2) changing tenure to maybe 10 or 20 years...

3) allow for smart non-lawyer appointees....

4) insist that members adhere to the letter of the Constitution or be subject to dismissal....


agree or disagree....?

I totally agree, the "Papers Please" should have been struck down a long time ago.
 
Sounds dumb to me... It's already their job to "adhere to the letter of the Constitution" and they don't... But that's why they say "in your opinion." Both sides we demand anyone that does not vote how they like gets removed.

The best thing people can do at this point is revolt, this does not need to be violent, but maybe it will be. Government should have never pushed people that a point where violence is an option but it seems the US wants it.
 
Anyone else surprised that it took the rightwing a whole day to come up with this "plan"....

Gingrich's idea of calling them to testify before Congress to explain their rulings is....uh....well, it was from Newt.

Terrible ideas in the OP. All the way around.
 
Sounds dumb to me... It's already their job to "adhere to the letter of the Constitution" and they don't... But that's why they say "in your opinion." Both sides we demand anyone that does not vote how they like gets removed.

The best thing people can do at this point is revolt, this does not need to be violent, but maybe it will be. Government should have never pushed people that a point where violence is an option but it seems the US wants it.

I declare NASA unconstitutional (find it in the Constitution). Well, there goes satellite TV and the Internet.

Hope you don't like stealth bombers or clean air. They aren't there either.
 
Everyone knows Obamacare is unconstitutional, even Obama... It's that part of one side (as they are in a minority) does not believe in the constitution. It's really that simple. The constitution and FF’s said no, Obama and some supporters say yes.
 
I think it's a fantastic idea to put people on the court who aren't lawyers (ie - aren't educated in the law)....sounds real.....interesting. Perhaps we could put in celebrities and run the Scotus like Hollywood Squares.:tongue:
 
Sounds dumb to me... It's already their job to "adhere to the letter of the Constitution" and they don't... But that's why they say "in your opinion." Both sides we demand anyone that does not vote how they like gets removed.

The best thing people can do at this point is revolt, this does not need to be violent, but maybe it will be. Government should have never pushed people that a point where violence is an option but it seems the US wants it.

I declare NASA unconstitutional (find it in the Constitution). Well, there goes satellite TV and the Internet.

Hope you don't like stealth bombers or clean air. They aren't there either.

I agree, get rid of NASA. What were you talking about stealth bombers and internet? Oh, you’re the “educated liberal” that lacks any education on the subject you are talking about… Seen that quite a few times.

MORE GOVERNMENT OR YOU WILL DIE!!! lol... Good stuff.
 
It's obvious the Court has become political in nature as they chip away at our Constitution.....therefore we need to change the Court's parameters....

some suggestions....

1) enlarging the Court to say....19 members...

Congress can do that, but be wary about what you ask for. I doubt you want that occurring right now with a Democrat President and a Democrat Senate. (President nominates and the Senate confirms.

2) changing tenure to maybe 10 or 20 years...


That is unconstitutional.


3) allow for smart non-lawyer appointees....


They already are allowed. You just need a President to nominate one and the Senate to confirm them. There is no law disallowing non-lawyers to be appointed.


4) insist that members adhere to the letter of the Constitution or be subject to dismissal....

1. Who's "Letter" is to be used.

2. What happens when a law is passed that by "letter" isn't in the Constitution, like Obamacare, the law is allowed to stand because the court can't address it?



>>>>
 
Last edited:
Everyone knows Obamacare is unconstitutional, even Obama... It's that part of one side (as they are in a minority) does not believe in the constitution. It's really that simple. The constitution and FF’s said no, Obama and some supporters say yes.

No, everyone doesn't know that, including 5 of the Supremes. The Constitution speaks? Pieces of paper don't speak, the SC does that and it did so yesterday. :D
 
I think it's a fantastic idea to put people on the court who aren't lawyers (ie - aren't educated in the law)....sounds real.....interesting. Perhaps we could put in celebrities and run the Scotus like Hollywood Squares.:tongue:

aren't they celebrity wannabees already......? :eusa_whistle:
 
It's obvious the Court has become political in nature as they chip away at our Constitution.....therefore we need to change the Court's parameters....

some suggestions....

1) enlarging the Court to say....19 members...

2) changing tenure to maybe 10 or 20 years...

3) allow for smart non-lawyer appointees....

4) insist that members adhere to the letter of the Constitution or be subject to dismissal....


agree or disagree....?

How about congress, the POTUS and the SC just follow the constitution for a change, that would be nice now wouldn't it.
 
Sounds dumb to me... It's already their job to "adhere to the letter of the Constitution" and they don't... But that's why they say "in your opinion." Both sides we demand anyone that does not vote how they like gets removed.

The best thing people can do at this point is revolt, this does not need to be violent, but maybe it will be. Government should have never pushed people that a point where violence is an option but it seems the US wants it.

Agreed that what needs to be done is to get back to the powers strictly and implicitly detailed in the constitution... and using our states to FORCE the federal government (since the states are what give the fed its power, not the other way around) to comply with the law of the constitution.. and we start with nullification
 
.
It's obvious the Court has become political in nature as they chip away at our Constitution.....therefore we need to change the Court's parameters....

some suggestions....

1) enlarging the Court to say....19 members...

Congress can do that, but be wary about what you ask for. I doubt you want that occurring right now with a Democrat President and a Democrat Senate. (President nominates and the Senate confirms.

phase them in a few at a time over several administrations...

2) changing tenure to maybe 10 or 20 years...


That is unconstitutional.

:D .....as if that matters today..... [so add an Amendment]


3) allow for smart non-lawyer appointees....


They already are allowed. You just need a President to nominate one and the Senate to confirm them. There is no law disallowing non-lawyers to be appointed.

i think you may be right about that...

4) insist that members adhere to the letter of the Constitution or be subject to dismissal....

1. Who's "Letter" is to be used.

2. What happens when a law is passed that by "letter" isn't in the Constitution, like Obamacare, the law is allowed to stand because the court can't address it?

haul them before Congress to explain their positions....it's time we stop treating them like they are Untouchables....

>>>>
 
Geez...you've got the most activist conservative court in years and you guys still ain't happy?

why should we be....?

why is it that an "activist" court is always a court that moves AWAY FROM the Constitution.....?
 

Forum List

Back
Top