Article 15
Dr. House slayer
- Jul 4, 2008
- 24,673
- 4,916
- 183
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
High time to revamp the Supreme Court
- Thread starter ScreamingEagle
- Start date
ScreamingEagle
Gold Member
- Jul 5, 2004
- 13,399
- 1,706
- 245
- Thread starter
- #42
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....?
what's so freakin' funny about attempting to limit judges who think they are smarter than the law.....?
ScreamingEagle
Gold Member
- Jul 5, 2004
- 13,399
- 1,706
- 245
- Thread starter
- #43
Yes the authority to tax is limited to Congress.Are there Constitutional limits to Federal government taxing authority?
OK. I should rephrase.
Are there Constitutional limits to Congress' taxing authority?
i thought there were only certain kinds of federal taxes allowed.....like income tax and taxes for the common defense.....
since i believe this is neither......i'm wondering what type of tax was Roberts referring to.....?
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....?
Agree. I do not like any office where people stay for life. No government office should be without term limits.
EriktheRed
Eh...
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....?
what's so freakin' funny about attempting to limit judges who think they are smarter than the law.....?
What's funny is you acting like YOU'RE such a legal expert and the fact that you're only saying this because of extreme butthurt over yesterday's ruling.
Inthemiddle
Rookie
- Oct 4, 2011
- 6,354
- 675
- 0
- Banned
- #46
It's obvious the Court has become political in nature as they chip away at our Constitution.
Yeah, because John Roberts is probably a big personal supporter of the health care law.
1) enlarging the Court to say....19 members...
That idea worked well for FDR.
2) changing tenure to maybe 10 or 20 years...
That's a great idea. The court will be even more inclined to swing with the politics of the times.
3) allow for smart non-lawyer appointees....
There's no requirement that a person be a lawyer to become a Justice of the court. It just so happens that people with a law degree happen to be infinitely more qualified on interpreting the law.
4) insist that members adhere to the letter of the Constitution or be subject to dismissal....
The Judiciary is granted by the constitution with the power and duty to interpret the laws, including the constitution. The Supreme Court is, therefore, constitutionally endowed as being virtually inerrant. Thus, your insinuation that Justices don't already adhere to the constitution is absurd. I think what you mean is that you would want to establish a litmus test to make sure that Justices would rule on cases based on the politics that you personally like.
ScreamingEagle
Gold Member
- Jul 5, 2004
- 13,399
- 1,706
- 245
- Thread starter
- #47
what's so freakin' funny about attempting to limit judges who think they are smarter than the law.....?
What's funny is you acting like YOU'RE such a legal expert and the fact that you're only saying this because of extreme butthurt over yesterday's ruling.
what's even funnier is you thinking that i'm acting like a legal expert......
it doesn't take much for a lay person to grasp the basics here.....Roberts contorted logic in order to find a way for Obamacare to suck air for a few months longer....and i bet he is patting himself on the back for being such a bright judge...
ScreamingEagle
Gold Member
- Jul 5, 2004
- 13,399
- 1,706
- 245
- Thread starter
- #48
It's obvious the Court has become political in nature as they chip away at our Constitution.
Yeah, because John Roberts is probably a big personal supporter of the health care law.
so a penalty is the same thing as a tax....?
1) enlarging the Court to say....19 members...
That idea worked well for FDR.
already addressed this.....add them over several administrations....
That's a great idea. The court will be even more inclined to swing with the politics of the times.
so what....it does now....
3) allow for smart non-lawyer appointees....
There's no requirement that a person be a lawyer to become a Justice of the court. It just so happens that people with a law degree happen to be infinitely more qualified on interpreting the law.
yes....you would THINK so....
4) insist that members adhere to the letter of the Constitution or be subject to dismissal....
The Judiciary is granted by the constitution with the power and duty to interpret the laws, including the constitution. The Supreme Court is, therefore, constitutionally endowed as being virtually inerrant. Thus, your insinuation that Justices don't already adhere to the constitution is absurd. I think what you mean is that you would want to establish a litmus test to make sure that Justices would rule on cases based on the politics that you personally like.
INTERPRET the existing law......not make NEW ONES......
regent
Gold Member
- Jan 30, 2012
- 10,459
- 1,148
- 245
It's obvious the Court has become political in nature as they chip away at our Constitution.
Yeah, because John Roberts is probably a big personal supporter of the health care law.
so a penalty is the same thing as a tax....?
That idea worked well for FDR.
already addressed this.....add them over several administrations....
That's a great idea. The court will be even more inclined to swing with the politics of the times.
so what....it does now....
There's no requirement that a person be a lawyer to become a Justice of the court. It just so happens that people with a law degree happen to be infinitely more qualified on interpreting the law.
yes....you would THINK so....
4) insist that members adhere to the letter of the Constitution or be subject to dismissal....
The Judiciary is granted by the constitution with the power and duty to interpret the laws, including the constitution. The Supreme Court is, therefore, constitutionally endowed as being virtually inerrant. Thus, your insinuation that Justices don't already adhere to the constitution is absurd. I think what you mean is that you would want to establish a litmus test to make sure that Justices would rule on cases based on the politics that you personally like.
INTERPRET the existing law......not make NEW ONES......
But the Constitution does not give the Court the power to interpret the laws and decide if they fit the Constitution. The Court simply took that power for its very own in 1803 in the most famous court case to date, Marbury vs. Madison.
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, youre 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.
A strict reading of the constitution will get rid of all of the above. Sorry. Facts are stubborn things. You? You're just idiotic.
Supreme Court justices should be elected and have term limits. These life time appointments are bull shit.
I expect old Ruthie to keel over and crook off any time. She has no business being on that court. Neither does radical partisan hacks like Sotomayer and Kagan.
I expect old Ruthie to keel over and crook off any time. She has no business being on that court. Neither does radical partisan hacks like Sotomayer and Kagan.
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....?
If you admit that you are bat shit crazy ...I will agree to it.
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....?
Why? we allowed this too happen I have come too grips with what Roberts said. and it's a bitter pill to swallow all I can say if we don't vote every cock sucker out of office will we enslave ourselves
Inthemiddle
Rookie
- Oct 4, 2011
- 6,354
- 675
- 0
- Banned
- #54
INTERPRET the existing law......not make NEW ONES......
Says an ignorant mind. Courts have been making law for a thousand years. It's an inherent part of judicial power. Court's make common law (case law) and legislature's make statutory law. The founder's understood this when they wrote the constitution and charged the Judiciary with the judicial powers of the government.
Inthemiddle
Rookie
- Oct 4, 2011
- 6,354
- 675
- 0
- Banned
- #55
But the Constitution does not give the Court the power to interpret the laws and decide if they fit the Constitution.
Yes it does. Go read it.
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....?
Its not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, as the proposal is idiocy.
What youre advocating is a second legislative branch, and it will only succeed in destroying judicial independence.
As for:
insist that members adhere to the letter of the Constitution or be subject to dismissal....
Who would have the authority to do the insisting and dismissing?
Chief Justice Warren experience the same hate and inane reforms after the Brown decision, invalidating segregation and striking down separate but equal. Needless to say history proved Warren correct and his detractors extreme; the same will be true for Chief Justice Roberts.
Political Junky
Gold Member
- May 27, 2009
- 25,793
- 3,990
- 280
Cons will really be upset when Obama gets a chance to nominate two or three more justices.
The Infidel
EVIL CONSERVATIVE
Cons will really be upset when Obama gets a chance to nominate two or three more justices.
Not going to happen
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....?
Disagree...
Big Fitz
User Quit *****
- Nov 23, 2009
- 16,917
- 2,522
- 48
Disagree on all but #2. or at least set a mandatory retirement age.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....?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 230
- Replies
- 277
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 259
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 13
- Views
- 142
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 192
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 88
- Views
- 324
- Replies
- 27
- Views
- 138
- Replies
- 155
- Views
- 4K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8045
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-