How to reform the Supreme Court

[Unkotare]

well so far this decade we havent been to good with the Presidents.....the class A,B and C people are staying home.....

Then that is where the problem lies, not in the terms of Supreme Court Justices. No dancing around the real problem here.

 

[Harry Dresden]

well so far this decade we havent been to good with the Presidents.....the class A,B and C people are staying home.....

Then that is where the problem lies, not in the terms of Supreme Court Justices. No dancing around the real problem here.

let me ask you this Unk....why should they be appointed for life?...

 

[longknife]

well so far this decade we havent been to good with the Presidents.....the class A,B and C people are staying home.....

Then that is where the problem lies, not in the terms of Supreme Court Justices. No dancing around the real problem here.

let me ask you this Unk....why should they be appointed for life?...

L.e.t m.e e.x.p.l.a.i.n t.h.i.s c.a.r.e.f.u.l.l.y t.o y.o.u -It is so they are not beholden to any special interest groups and can consider judicial matters in a calm and weighed manner.

 

[dcraelin]

same thing as anything else in these kind of jobs.....they get too comfortable.....

They are not up for reelection, and therefore not beholden to special interests or lobbyists. You won't avoid shitty justices by throwing out all the babies with the bathwater. What we all need to do as Americans is exercise better judgment ourselves in electing presidents.

"Therefore not beholden to special interests"!!!! get real...explain Bush v Gore, KELO,
Citizens United

My OP did not say we should elect them, but a mandatory retirement age, or age range,...prohibiting from further work perhaps would be just as good as lifetime appointment.

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)

Dream on--LOL. This is a LIFETIME job--no one can fire them--nor will they recuse themselves.
While the court is considered conservative--as we have seen--often unexpectedly--they will approve of something or disapprove of something regardless of party politics.
And that's the way it should be.

They can be "fired" thru impeachment ...they should recuse themselves, I believe Scalia actually has a son that has argued a case before them...and HE DIDNT RECUSE HIMSELF, this is WRONG.

Then that is where the problem lies, not in the terms of Supreme Court Justices. No dancing around the real problem here.

let me ask you this Unk....why should they be appointed for life?...

L.e.t m.e e.x.p.l.a.i.n t.h.i.s c.a.r.e.f.u.l.l.y t.o y.o.u -It is so they are not beholden to any special interest groups and can consider judicial matters in a calm and weighed manner.

"calm and weighed manner,"--ha they're so calm and measured that they can't get their work done, and still take a big chunk of the year off. also , d.o. t.h.e.y. w.r.i.t.e.l.i.k.e.t.h.i.s.?.?.?

Lifetime appointments dont sever ties to a community,past friendships, family ties etc.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Then that is where the problem lies, not in the terms of Supreme Court Justices. No dancing around the real problem here.

let me ask you this Unk....why should they be appointed for life?...

L.e.t m.e e.x.p.l.a.i.n t.h.i.s c.a.r.e.f.u.l.l.y t.o y.o.u -It is so they are not beholden to any special interest groups and can consider judicial matters in a calm and weighed manner.

sure they can.....thats why when they do what they do we see people here from both sides saying they are legislating from the bench....maybe you should tell all those 'party" people that.....i say ten years and your done....

 

[Contumacious]

Then that is where the problem lies, not in the terms of Supreme Court Justices. No dancing around the real problem here.

let me ask you this Unk....why should they be appointed for life?...

L.e.t m.e e.x.p.l.a.i.n t.h.i.s c.a.r.e.f.u.l.l.y t.o y.o.u -It is so they are not beholden to any special interest groups and can consider judicial matters in a calm and weighed manner.

Let me xplain this carefully to you, that's BULLSHIT>

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/The-Brandeis-Frankfurter-Connection-Activities/dp/0195031229"]The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection: The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices[/ame]

.

 

[Unkotare]

well so far this decade we havent been to good with the Presidents.....the class A,B and C people are staying home.....

Then that is where the problem lies, not in the terms of Supreme Court Justices. No dancing around the real problem here.

let me ask you this Unk....why should they be appointed for life?...

So that their only focus is the interpretation of the US Constitution. Not running for office later, not setting the table for lucrative speaking tours ala Clinton, not positioning themselves for that plum spot at Superduperbig & Bros. Law Firm, etc. So that their decisions are based on their honest and expert legal opinions, not fear of retribution or hope for reward in any form. So that they may fulfill their very essential roles outside the necessarily messy and murky political pigpen.

Stuff like that.

 

[Unkotare]

same thing as anything else in these kind of jobs.....they get too comfortable.....

They are not up for reelection, and therefore not beholden to special interests or lobbyists. You won't avoid shitty justices by throwing out all the babies with the bathwater. What we all need to do as Americans is exercise better judgment ourselves in electing presidents.

"Therefore not beholden to special interests"!!!! get real...explain Bush v Gore, KELO,
Citizens United.

Your personal (and faaaar less than expert) disagreement with a decision does not indicate the influence of special interests. Get over yourself.

 

[Unkotare]

All this nonsense smacks of skirting responsibility for electing shitty presidents.

 

[dcraelin]

They are not up for reelection, and therefore not beholden to special interests or lobbyists. You won't avoid shitty justices by throwing out all the babies with the bathwater. What we all need to do as Americans is exercise better judgment ourselves in electing presidents.

"Therefore not beholden to special interests"!!!! get real...explain Bush v Gore, KELO,
Citizens United.

Your personal (and faaaar less than expert) disagreement with a decision does not indicate the influence of special interests. Get over yourself.

Your "not up for reelection...therefore" phrase does not indicate the lack of influence of special interests either. I dont believe, in the more famous cases I listed, that there were unanimous decisions. In fact I know at least two broke down basically on partisan lines. What accounts for this in your view that these perfect judges are so impartially reading the law?

If by "expert" you mean the many partisan hacks appointed to the federal bench, or the many hack lawyers practicing in this country, which I suspect your among, then no I'm no expert. They need to get over themselves.

"Americans need to exercise better judgement ourselves in electing presidents" You dont really think that will solve the problem do you? Should Americans sole determination of a right presidential vote be on who the candidate might or might not appoint to the SC?. That is part of the problem and why my opening post offers a fairer solution.

 

[Unkotare]

I dont believe, in the more famous cases I listed, that there were unanimous decisions. In fact I know at least two broke down basically on partisan lines. What accounts for this in your view that these perfect judges are so impartially reading the law?
.

I never said that judges were "perfect," you lying sack of shit. I also never said they didn't have opinions or political/judicial leanings one way or another. Pay attention.

 

[Unkotare]

If by "expert" you mean the many partisan hacks appointed to the federal bench.

I mean people trained in the law, with more experience and knowledge than you could ever hope to acquire if you lived to be 500, moron. Does this make them infallible? No it doesn't, moron, so don't bother asking.

 

[Unkotare]

"Americans need to exercise better judgement ourselves in electing presidents" You dont really think that will solve the problem do you?

Yes, I do.

 

[dcraelin]

I dont believe, in the more famous cases I listed, that there were unanimous decisions. In fact I know at least two broke down basically on partisan lines. What accounts for this in your view that these perfect judges are so impartially reading the law?
.

I never said that judges were "perfect," you lying sack of shit. I also never said they didn't have opinions or political/judicial leanings one way or another. Pay attention.

no, you never outright said it, but it is implied in your prissy attitude.

let me resubmit some unanswered statements from my previous post for your expert judgement.

Your "not up for reelection...therefore" phrase does not indicate the lack of influence of special interests either.

"Americans need to exercise better judgement ourselves in electing presidents" You dont really think that will solve the problem do you? Should Americans sole determination of a right presidential vote be on who the candidate might or might not appoint to the SC?. That is part of the problem and why my opening post offers a fairer solution.

 

[Mike473]

What would be the main argument against having a retirement age for the judges? Let's say 75 years old? Most normal people (I know, not all) have a hard time working full time careers into their late 70's & 80s. It is hard for me to believe that most Supreme Court judges just happen to defy the odds and are not effected by old age. My mom is in her early 70's, she retired a few years ago. She is still sharp, but forgets things from time to time and really struggled to work 40 hours per week for the last couple years before retirement. I just wonder how effective these justices really are once they reach very old age.

 

[dcraelin]

What would be the main argument against having a retirement age for the judges? Let's say 75 years old? Most normal people (I know, not all) have a hard time working full time careers into their late 70's & 80s. It is hard for me to believe that most Supreme Court judges just happen to defy the odds and are not effected by old age. My mom is in her early 70's, she retired a few years ago. She is still sharp, but forgets things from time to time and really struggled to work 40 hours per week for the last couple years before retirement. I just wonder how effective these justices really are once they reach very old age.

exactly, in fact they should be forced to retire earlier than the general population. No doubt they get an excessive pension anyway, it wont hurt them.

 

[hazlnut]

Get rid of Scalia and Thomas?

 

[Unkotare]

I dont believe, in the more famous cases I listed, that there were unanimous decisions. In fact I know at least two broke down basically on partisan lines. What accounts for this in your view that these perfect judges are so impartially reading the law?
.

I never said that judges were "perfect," you lying sack of shit. I also never said they didn't have opinions or political/judicial leanings one way or another. Pay attention.

no, you never outright said it, but it is implied ....

Save your little imagination for playtime, chump. I'll tell you what I mean when I say something.

 

[Unkotare]

"Americans need to exercise better judgement ourselves in electing presidents" You dont really think that will solve the problem do you? .

Yes, I do.

 

[Unkotare]

What would be the main argument against having a retirement age for the judges? Let's say 75 years old? Most normal people (I know, not all) have a hard time working full time careers into their late 70's & 80s. It is hard for me to believe that most Supreme Court judges just happen to defy the odds and are not effected by old age. My mom is in her early 70's, she retired a few years ago. She is still sharp, but forgets things from time to time and really struggled to work 40 hours per week for the last couple years before retirement. I just wonder how effective these justices really are once they reach very old age.

They're not out chopping wood, they're using their expert knowledge and understanding of the law to address difficult questions of constitutionality. If a justice becomes senile they can be removed, but being older doesn't necessarily mean being mentally incapacitated. Things like wisdom, experience, and historical perspective are also of value.