How to reform the Supreme Court

[AvgGuyIA]

I would very much like to see the impeachment of justices who do not follow the constitution.

Justice John Roberts but only when Obama is out of office and a republican is in the Presidency.

 

[dcraelin]

An example of why their needs to be mandatory retirement of federal judges. Judge Griesa is 82 and clearly in over his head. Argentina s Press Office Takes On Judge Griesa And The American Judiciary - Forbes

Because of his ruling fair-minded creditors are not being paid. They are being made pawns of the hedge fund manipulators.


"The broader objection is that these hold-out creditors are not people who lost money when Argentina first defaulted – if it was, their actions would be easier to understand. Instead, they (or most of them) bought up the bonds for very little in the aftermath of default, but are now trying to get their full value, despite the fact that they never lost money on the original purchase."

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

We have a constitution now. End of story.

And the Constitution allows for amendments that could easily reform the SC back to its intended purpose...which it has FAR exceed.

Proposal - An Amendment that basically imposes:

• SC justice term limits
• Ability for a 3/5 vote from the House and Senate to override a majority opinion without being subject to Presidential veto
• Ability for 3/5 vote of the state legislatures to override a majority opinion

One only need to look a decisions like Marbury v Madison, Dred Scott V Sandford, Wickard v Filburn, Plessy v Ferguson, Korematsu v US, and many others to see that we need a remedy against a tyrannous and all powerful SC.

So you want to substitute the House and state legislatures for the SC?

No, I want to provide a check against 5 people that rule over all of us.

Why not just do away with the SC?

Because they serve an important function. They are not, however, omnipotent as the long list of AWFUL decisions clearly demonstrates.

Somebody has to make the call, in the US it's the SC

I would argue THE PEOPLE should ultimately make the call, not central planners or all powerful judges.

At one time, "the people" thought separate but equal was a mighty fine idea.

"The people" are idiots, who should barely be trusted to pick their own breakfast items let alone decide on the constitutional questions of the day.

When you have a back ache, do you ask "the people" what is wrong with you, or do you go see a doctor?

When your vehicle's check engine light comes on, do you ask "the people" to diagnose it , or do you go see a mechanic?

As a final note, just because YOU don't like a decision, doesn't mean it was a bad decision, it just means you didn't come to the same conclusion as experts did.

 

[deltex1]

Closed book multiple choice test on the constitution...with written essay on how Obabble ever got into Harvard.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Draw names out of a group of eligible lawyers,judges

This was basically how it was in the Articles of Confederation

at the time of the revolution there were disputes between states over western territories. The states were very interested in coming up with a fair way to resolve the disputes. What they came up with in the Articles of Confederation was a kind of random system where the last step was drawing names out of a pool for the judges.

also have extra names drawn as replacements when main Judges should recuse themselves (which they should probably do more often)

Kill all the leftist lawyers and judges. Problem solved.

 

[Missourian]

We have a constitution now. End of story.

And the Constitution allows for amendments that could easily reform the SC back to its intended purpose...which it has FAR exceed.

Proposal - An Amendment that basically imposes:

• SC justice term limits
• Ability for a 3/5 vote from the House and Senate to override a majority opinion without being subject to Presidential veto
• Ability for 3/5 vote of the state legislatures to override a majority opinion

One only need to look a decisions like Marbury v Madison, Dred Scott V Sandford, Wickard v Filburn, Plessy v Ferguson, Korematsu v US, and many others to see that we need a remedy against a tyrannous and all powerful SC.

So you want to substitute the House and state legislatures for the SC?

No, I want to provide a check against 5 people that rule over all of us.

Why not just do away with the SC?

Because they serve an important function. They are not, however, omnipotent as the long list of AWFUL decisions clearly demonstrates.

Somebody has to make the call, in the US it's the SC

I would argue THE PEOPLE should ultimately make the call, not central planners or all powerful judges.

At one time, "the people" thought separate but equal was a mighty fine idea.

"The people" are idiots, who should barely be trusted to pick their own breakfast items let alone decide on the constitutional questions of the day.

When you have a back ache, do you ask "the people" what is wrong with you, or do you go see a doctor?

When your vehicle's check engine light comes on, do you ask "the people" to diagnose it , or do you go see a mechanic?

As a final note, just because YOU don't like a decision, doesn't mean it was a bad decision, it just means you didn't come to the same conclusion as experts did.

When I get a back ache, I take an aspirin.

When my check engine light comes on, I get out my code reader, diagnose the problem and fix it.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

And the Constitution allows for amendments that could easily reform the SC back to its intended purpose...which it has FAR exceed.

Proposal - An Amendment that basically imposes:

• SC justice term limits
• Ability for a 3/5 vote from the House and Senate to override a majority opinion without being subject to Presidential veto
• Ability for 3/5 vote of the state legislatures to override a majority opinion

One only need to look a decisions like Marbury v Madison, Dred Scott V Sandford, Wickard v Filburn, Plessy v Ferguson, Korematsu v US, and many others to see that we need a remedy against a tyrannous and all powerful SC.

Horrible idea imho.
How do we protect our Constitutional rights when a majority in a single state can revoke those rights?

Not really well thought out imho.

It is a horrible idea, not just in your opinion, but as a matter of fact.

You're also correct that our rights are not subject to 'majority rule,' that in our Constitutional Republic one is subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly.

Sort of like that "Nation of laws" bullshit, right? You would deny as many rights as you saw fit were YOU to be in charge. You're not fooling anyone, you hypocrite bastard. Just like your buddy Obama - the man who would be King.

Yep! Nailed it, Randall. You can always count on homofascist Clayton Jones to spout whatever suits his agenda at any given moment. For instance, while he talks about the ills of mobocracy and hails the rule of law, he actually demonstrates over and over again that he favors the rule of men over the imperatives of inalienable human rights, which is what the rule of law ultimately is, or it's nothing at all.

Gay statists strike again...you will submit Page 24 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[JakeStarkey]

And the ConstiOne only need to look a decisions like Marbury v Madison, Dred Scott V Sandford, Wickard v Filburn, Plessy v Ferguson, Korematsu v US, and many others to see that we need a remedy against a tyrannous and all powerful SC.

Nonsense. Your suggestions are exactly why we need SCOTUS as it is now.

 

[dcraelin]

how come no one is commenting on the idiocy of keeping on judges like Judge Griesa?

 

[deltex1]

I know how to deform the Court...put another liberal lesbo on there.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

how come no one is commenting on the idiocy of keeping on judges like Judge Griesa?

Likely because he's not on the Supreme Court, which is still in no need of 'reform.'

 

[dcraelin]

well a mandatory retirement age should apply to all federal judges, but maybe I should start another thread.

And the Supreme Clowns are badly in need of reform