How to reform the Supreme Court

[hazlnut]

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.

More ignorance and stupidity from the right.

When they go this far to the right (the ideas to which you're referring) they've gone right off the cliff.

These go up to 11.!!

 

[OKTexas]

If and when the Dems take all of the necessary majorities, they simply increase SCOTUS to 11 or 13 positions, put their folks in and overturn Citizens.

Is that how the far right reactionaries really wants to play?

This is not 1860, and the reactionaries are not Confederate-like whatevers.

So you admit the court is not an impartial body operating outside of politics the way they were intended. Good job jakey, good job.

Those are your words, not mine, OKTexas. Good job for putting words in my mouth I did not say.

Your TeaP reactionary time over is over. Now it is time for TeaP time out.

Watch.

That is exactly what you said, otherwise it wouldn't matter how many judges there are on the court. If they only considered law the same conclusions would be reached.

 

[OKTexas]

So IOW, instead of using computers, we should use pencils.

Got it.

Well if that was your take from what I said, maybe you are better sutied for the pencile.

The point is is that societies evolve. Modern societies need modern solutions. Simply because something was "the best" 300 years ago doesn't mean it is today.

My point was a solution must fix the problem, doesn't matter who thinks of it or when it was thought up, if it doesn't fix the problem it's not a solution is it?

 

[Toro]

Well if that was your take from what I said, maybe you are better sutied for the pencile.

The point is is that societies evolve. Modern societies need modern solutions. Simply because something was "the best" 300 years ago doesn't mean it is today.

My point was a solution must fix the problem, doesn't matter who thinks of it or when it was thought up, if it doesn't fix the problem it's not a solution is it?

What's the problem? The Supreme Court is one of the most respected institutions in this country.

 

[OKTexas]

The point is is that societies evolve. Modern societies need modern solutions. Simply because something was "the best" 300 years ago doesn't mean it is today.

My point was a solution must fix the problem, doesn't matter who thinks of it or when it was thought up, if it doesn't fix the problem it's not a solution is it?

What's the problem? The Supreme Court is one of the most respected institutions in this country.

Have you actually read the ACA decision, it's the biggest exercise in circular logic I've ever seen. I'm no lawyer but I could drive a truck through Roberts arguments. An that's before you take into account the the court violated the constitution to rewrite that piece of crap. All legislative authority is reserved to congress. If you would like to argue the point I would be happy to school you on it.

 

[Toro]

My point was a solution must fix the problem, doesn't matter who thinks of it or when it was thought up, if it doesn't fix the problem it's not a solution is it?

What's the problem? The Supreme Court is one of the most respected institutions in this country.

Have you actually read the ACA decision, it's the biggest exercise in circular logic I've ever seen. I'm no lawyer but I could drive a truck through Roberts arguments. An that's before you take into account the the court violated the constitution to rewrite that piece of crap. All legislative authority is reserved to congress. If you would like to argue the point I would be happy to school you on it.

IOW, the SCOTUS makes a ruling you don't like, so the answer is to draw judges names out of a hat. Got it.

Perhaps Obama would then put 100 names of the most liberal judges in a hat and he'll pull 9 out.

Then you'd be happy.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If and when the Dems take all of the necessary majorities, they simply increase SCOTUS to 11 or 13 positions, put their folks in and overturn Citizens.

FDR already attempted that. It almost resulted in a coup from his own party.

 

[dcraelin]

Yeeeas I do realize that

Then why do you offer 18th century solutions?

the process thats exists now is an 18th century solution isn't it?, This one just seems to be less political

 

[OKTexas]

What's the problem? The Supreme Court is one of the most respected institutions in this country.

Have you actually read the ACA decision, it's the biggest exercise in circular logic I've ever seen. I'm no lawyer but I could drive a truck through Roberts arguments. An that's before you take into account the the court violated the constitution to rewrite that piece of crap. All legislative authority is reserved to congress. If you would like to argue the point I would be happy to school you on it.

IOW, the SCOTUS makes a ruling you don't like, so the answer is to draw judges names out of a hat. Got it.

Perhaps Obama would then put 100 names of the most liberal judges in a hat and he'll pull 9 out.

Then you'd be happy.

Excuse me, I didn't say that. I want the court to do their job and do nothing but apply law and the constitution to their cases. No politics allowed, no expanding their powers into legislation, no line item veto that they deyned to the president, should I go on?

 

[JakeStarkey]

So you admit the court is not an impartial body operating outside of politics the way they were intended. Good job jakey, good job.

Those are your words, not mine, OKTexas. Good job for putting words in my mouth I did not say.

Your TeaP reactionary time over is over. Now it is time for TeaP time out.

Watch.

That is exactly what you said, otherwise it wouldn't matter how many judges there are on the court. If they only considered law the same conclusions would be reached.

Actually you said the Court was reactionary and political. And you clearly don't understand SCOTUS.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If and when the Dems take all of the necessary majorities, they simply increase SCOTUS to 11 or 13 positions, put their folks in and overturn Citizens.

FDR already attempted that. It almost resulted in a coup from his own party.

The far right reactionaries are far more crazy than the 1930s GOP far right conservatives.

I think Obama's party will do it if our party will not negotiate in good faith.

 

[OKTexas]

Those are your words, not mine, OKTexas. Good job for putting words in my mouth I did not say.

Your TeaP reactionary time over is over. Now it is time for TeaP time out.

Watch.

That is exactly what you said, otherwise it wouldn't matter how many judges there are on the court. If they only considered law the same conclusions would be reached.

Actually you said the Court was reactionary and political. And you clearly don't understand SCOTUS.

If the court wasn't reactionary and political their votes wouldn't be so predictable. If they only thing considered was the law and the constitution there would be many more unanimous decisions, because the law and constitution are written, they don't change.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, OKTexas, you don't get "just once more" after it has been clearly explained to you.

If our GOP drives the country over the cliff and economic tragedy ensues, you won't have to worry about what is happening in the county because you and your podjos' votes, all thirteen of them, will have no affect on what is going to happen.

You will abide.

 

[OKTexas]

No, OKTexas, you don't get "just once more" after it has been clearly explained to you.

If our GOP drives the country over the cliff and economic tragedy ensues, you won't have to worry about what is happening in the county because you and your podjos' votes, all thirteen of them, will have no affect on what is going to happen.

You will abide.

Poor baby, is that stroke getting to you again, you seem to be having trouble staying on topic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, OKTexas, you don't get "just once more" after it has been clearly explained to you.

If our GOP drives the country over the cliff and economic tragedy ensues, you won't have to worry about what is happening in the county because you and your podjos' votes, all thirteen of them, will have no affect on what is going to happen.

You will abide.

Poor baby, is that stroke getting to you again, you seem to be having trouble staying on topic.

Smiles at the crazy man OKTexas, drops a dime in his cup, steps around him, and keeps walking.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There are already remedies , the Congress can at any time pass legislation that restricts what the Court can rule on.

bullshit.

Congress has no control of the Supreme Court.

certainly not which laws they can rule on.

try reading the document.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Article III | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

Pretty simple concept. Congress can provide exceptions.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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)

Not quite. That practice only applied to disputes between the states concerning boundaries. Regular courts were established for the "trial of piracies and felonies commited on the high seas and establishing courts for receiving and determining finally appeals in all cases of captures"

Im not sure your entirely correct on this either, will have to look back but regardless I believe the method outlined takes alot of the politics out of the process making for a fairer court.

According to whom and by what authority?

You’re not advocating ‘reform,’ you’re advocating the elimination of the rule of law and with it the Republic, the people’s only bulwark against tyranny.

It would have to be an amendment

"elimination of the rule of law"?!!!! talk about over the top and ignorant...Im merely suggesting an alternative that has worked before.

You do realize its no longer 1775, right?

I mean, you know they didn't have the Internet back then.

Yeeeas I do realize that

Correct.

You’re advocating eliminating the rule of law, you just don’t understand that.

Term limits, mandatory retirement, and pulling names out of a hat are all punitive measures designed to intimidate and compel the justices to rule in a manner consistent with popular (partisan) opinion, not Constitutional jurisprudence. Your proposal will make the Supreme Court more political, not less.

Moreover, pulling names out of a hat violates Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution investing in the president the authority to appoint justices to the Supreme Court, and undermines the indirect democracy inherent in the Electoral College process.

Last, the justices do not simply convene and conjure decisions out of thin air, predicated solely on their personal, partisan, or subjective perceptions of a given issue; rather, they rule based on established, settled, and accepted case law, and are presumed to do so in good faith. They cannot be expected to make their deliberations indeed in good faith subject to the prospect of term limits, mandatory retirement, or a hat full of jurists’ names.

 

[OKTexas]

Not quite. That practice only applied to disputes between the states concerning boundaries. Regular courts were established for the "trial of piracies and felonies commited on the high seas and establishing courts for receiving and determining finally appeals in all cases of captures"

Im not sure your entirely correct on this either, will have to look back but regardless I believe the method outlined takes alot of the politics out of the process making for a fairer court.



It would have to be an amendment

"elimination of the rule of law"?!!!! talk about over the top and ignorant...Im merely suggesting an alternative that has worked before.

You do realize its no longer 1775, right?

I mean, you know they didn't have the Internet back then.

Yeeeas I do realize that

Correct.

You’re advocating eliminating the rule of law, you just don’t understand that.

Term limits, mandatory retirement, and pulling names out of a hat are all punitive measures designed to intimidate and compel the justices to rule in a manner consistent with popular (partisan) opinion, not Constitutional jurisprudence. Your proposal will make the Supreme Court more political, not less.

Moreover, pulling names out of a hat violates Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution investing in the president the authority to appoint justices to the Supreme Court, and undermines the indirect democracy inherent in the Electoral College process.

Last, the justices do not simply convene and conjure decisions out of thin air, predicated solely on their personal, partisan, or subjective perceptions of a given issue; rather, they rule based on established, settled, and accepted case law, and are presumed to do so in good faith. They cannot be expected to make their deliberations indeed in good faith subject to the prospect of term limits, mandatory retirement, or a hat full of jurists’ names.

So tell me, where in this constitutional jurisprudence do they get the authority rename a penalty a tax and in doing so creating a new unconstitutional direct tax? Please cite that case law.

 

[eflatminor]

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.

More ignorance and stupidity from the right.

When they go this far to the right (the ideas to which you're referring) they've gone right off the cliff.

These go up to 11.!!

You advocate allowing five people to rule over all. I advocate power in the hands of the people. But I'M "far to the right???

 

[KokomoJojo]

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.

already have the power.

Juries Are Allowed To Judge The Law, Not Just The Facts

the supreme court is not the highest court of the land

the people are.

but you know how it is with all that xbox and nintendo competition


1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an "unreviewable and unreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge..." (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972))


one change however that is imperative to get changed no matter how much they piss and moan, is completely abolish summary judgment by judge. Every case regardless if it is a parking ticket (unless its under 20 dollars) needs to be decided by jury and jury only across the board.

summary judgment allows judges to use their "discretionary" powers and if you are one of the smart talented ones who com in pro se against the government or bank you stand a 99% chance of losing, but get it in front of a jury and its another story entirely, so they essentially rob you of the chance through summary judgment rules and bench discretion.
.