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.
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....?
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....?
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....?
that's hysterical... the first time a major political decision has been made across party lines since 2000 and NOW you're whining about partisanship?
and your answer to that bi-partisanship is to try to make it more political?
you guys crack me up.
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....?
that's hysterical... the first time a major political decision has been made across party lines since 2000 and NOW you're whining about partisanship?
and your answer to that bi-partisanship is to try to make it more political?
you guys crack me up.
It's one of the more unintentionally hilarious OP's I've seen here in a while.
that's hysterical... the first time a major political decision has been made across party lines since 2000 and NOW you're whining about partisanship?
and your answer to that bi-partisanship is to try to make it more political?
you guys crack me up.
It's one of the more unintentionally hilarious OP's I've seen here in a while.
do you think he even understands why we're laughing at him?
whining pigeon is so funny.
It's one of the more unintentionally hilarious OP's I've seen here in a while.
do you think he even understands why we're laughing at him?
whining pigeon is so funny.
He should change his name to wimpering eagle..
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....?
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....?
Do you whine like a bitch every time you disagree with a SC ruling?
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....?
You do realize that except for #2 and #4, you're suggesting to do what FDR wanted when he couldn't get his way and the threat alone to pack the court caused the beginning of the New Deal? And number 4 violates the powers of the judiciary.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.....?
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.....?
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 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.
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....?
Who are you? Aaron Sorkin???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 agree and look forward to the day of the following presidential address.
Television screen fades to be replaced by the image of the president sitting at his desk in the oval office.
Announcer: Tonight the President gives the initial address of what will be a series that will highlight issues he feels are in need of immediate change.
The President of the United States
The president: Good evening ladies and gentlemen.
Tonight we present a different kind of message The first in a series. We will forgo the usual platitudes and pats on the back to get straight to the business at hand.
In our founding documents our government is supposedly three co equal branches, executive, legislative and judiciary. What we will talk about tonight is the judiciary.
It is doubtful that the judiciary was ever intended as a check on laws as that is nowhere to be found in the constitution. It is certain that this became a primary duty early on and so remains today. I am not here to propose this be changed but I am going to present a new way of doing the Supreme Courts business.
It may be that few people look upon the court as a political organization. Certainly it was not supposed to be, but that too changed early on in our history, ending here where it is today, being the most political of all the branches.
I do not feel that the court can be de politicized but there must be found a way to neutralize the effects so that we can once again begin to look at laws through a legal lens rather than a political one.
Therefore my first proposal will be for the congress to frame laws, up to and including amending the constitution, to accept the following reorganization of the Supreme Court.
The number of justices will be immediately increased to 15.
Vacancies will continue to be by appointment but terms of service will be limited to 15 years . No judge may be appointed who is younger than 45 years of age or older than 60 years of age. Judges may serve only one term. Terms will be staggered so that the term of one justice will end each year. Vacancies due to death or any other reason will be appointed only for the term of the vacating judge.
Terms of judges sitting at the implementation of these changes will expire according to the age of the judge. The oldest will expire one year hence, continuing each year according to the age of the judge. All judges now serving will be replaced on that schedule.
Six new judges will be appointed immediately, their terms expiring , one per year, in the order so chosen by the president, to accommodate a schedule of all judges, including those sitting, being replaced in a period of 15 years. That means that those new judges, expanding the court to 15, will have terms of less than 15 years. All those appointed thereafter will serve the stated 15 years.
Judges will be required to go before senate, not for approval but for rejection. Rejection of the nominee will require a nay vote from three quarters of the entire body.
A strict code of ethics will be initiated setting out, in detail, what will be expected from the judges. Financial dealings, rules for recusement, and personal conduct will be plainly stated. These rules will be reviewed annually. Infractions will be dealt with harshly and quickly.
Judicial pay will be immediately doubled.
So what is hoped to be accomplished by these changes?
As it stands now the court looks at all cases through the lens of their ideology, be it Democrat or Republican, it is expected and, at the legislative level, is encouraged. In appointing judges it has become the primary qualification. Not legal scholarship, not fairness just the record of how they have remained devoted to the cause. It has become so bad that lower judge positions can remain vacant for years due to partisan considerations but that is another matter.
What I proposed will not eliminate that but it is hoped that it will minimize it. With every president appointing one judge a year it would take, at the outside, an entire two terms to place a majority, only to know that the next president could undo it just as quickly. I am hoping that the futility of keeping a political majority will place more value on appointing solid legal minds rather than political hacks.
Life time terms have also been a detriment. Too often we have, if not senile minds, at least those that are simply unable to give up their position long after their usefulness has fled, perhaps due to personal reasons, perhaps holding on until a president is elected that can appoint the proper person. Then there is the possibility of appointing a simply horrid judge that could serve fifty years with no remedy available. At any rate these life terms lead to a judiciary that is undependable. It is hoped set terms can discourage this.
The appointment process has long become simply adversary. Let the president appoint as he will. Should his appointment be so very bad let us hope that the senate can unite in a bipartisan way to prevent it.
A code of conduct has been long in coming and much needed. The behavior of some judges in the recent pas has been to be blunt, atrocious. They have mingled with those with whom they will sit in judgement and then failed to recuse themselves. They have had outside monetary as well as political interests sufficient to bar them from some cases at least, and impeach at most.
With the increase in pay there can be no excuse for monetary misconduct.
These changes will not be easy, but they are elemental. They will form a large part of my campaign efforts in the coming election.
Thank you and good night.
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....
...
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....
...
not buying the premise.
your argument here is about as political in nature as it gets. Your post shows very little true concern for the US Constitution or the principles behind it. Oh, I know you must think it does, but then again people who do great harm to others and institutions in the name of saving them, almost always have what they consider good reasons for what they say and do.
