Should Supreme Court Judges Be Popularly Elected?

[mdk]

No, absolutely not. This is a terrible idea for the myriad of reasons already explained in this thread. Having the SC justice beholden to the electorate and politics would destroy the institution.

The board notes that you oppose democracy and want govt officials free to ignore the will of the public.

No, absolutely not. This is a terrible idea for the myriad of reasons already explained in this thread. Having the SC justice beholden to the electorate and politics would destroy the institution.

The board notes that you oppose democracy and want govt officials free to ignore the will of the public.

And by the board, you mean you. It doesn't seem you are finding much support for your idea from liberals and conservatives alike.

The will of the people is irrelevant if that will is in violation of the Constitution. Was it not the will of the people, via their elected officials, when it came to restrictive gun laws ( that I felt were unconstitutional) in DC? The Founding Fathers are far from infallible but on this issue they got it correct.

 

[thereisnospoon]

[

The court is charged to interpret the constitutionality of law, the key word is interpret. .

Charged? Where does the constitution say the Supreme Court has authority to interpret the constitution.

And even if we grant them that authority, what part of the constitution did the judges "interpret" when they legalized abortion or forced taxpayers to provide free k-12 for illegals.???????? Fact is judges do not interpret the constitution - they rewrite it and call it an interpretation. THINK

Apparently USMB is just full of posters who've never taken so much as a remedial civics class.
The evidence is clear in that few have any clue how the federal government functions. And even less about the relationship between the Legislative and Judicial branches.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Do you really believe you could get a Constitutional Amendment passed with 2/3's of the House and 2/3's of the Senate and 2/3's of the Individual States voting Yes, to change the constitution for this 'bright idea' of yours?

According to the Constitution it IS THE PRESIDENT that appoints Supreme Court Justices and it is the Senate that gives advice and consent to them, and only 51% of the Senators voting yes, to have them appointed.

The reason there are no term limits and lifetime appointments is suppose to PROTECT us from Justices voting with their "political party".....there is no outside pressure for them to vote with a 'party' or vote with the President who appointed them because once they are appointed, they are appointed for life, so they can just rule and vote, with their conscience and within the boundaries of the Constitution...

And sure, there are plenty of their decisions that seemed very wrong to me....

Like letting the government take away people's property to give to private businesses in Kelo v New London,

and in this stupid, stupid, decision to allow even foreign governments and foreign people to contribute towards the elections of our Representation by allowing these PACS that say they are for Charity, the 501c4's, WHEN THEY ARE NOT primarily for charity but are primarily for political purposes, and allowing those who donate to these political groups to hold their donors SILENT, invisible, in darkness, so we don;t know who the hell is electing our officials through their spending.....AND on top of that, there being no SUNSHINE as to who these political donors are....they GET A TAX write off for their donation in the guise that it is a charity, with the Citizen's United case.... I mean..... HOLY CRAP!!!!

And then on top of that, there was Bush V Gore that they should have never stuck themselves in to because the Constitution says it is the individual STATES that handle ALL voting and elections INCLUDING FEDERAL elections....and then tried to cover their asses by saying this was just a one time decision and it could not be used as precedence in any other case....

So, yes, the Supreme Court has made some pretty damn unconstitutional decisions in my book, and those above aren't even the tip of the iceberg, again, imo.....

But, Congress could, if they would get off their butts and do it, correct a lot of the bad supreme court decisions....
Congress could clarify laws, so that the supreme court's ruling is moot....it's being done in some
States where they disagreed with the Supreme's decisions like with Kilo vs New London....they wrote in to their own constitutions or their own state laws that eminent domain could not be used by a government to take away the citizen's property if it was to go to private businesses, just for the purpose of collecting more in taxes from the private businesses vs collecting more in taxes from the individual property owners....so they have made null and void the Supreme courts decision on Kelo vs New London.

Congress can clarify the rules on 501c4's or just drop it all together....

So, there ARE checks and balances to what the Supreme Court has done.... we just have lazy ass congress critters or corrupt congress critters, that are stopping that from happening....

So then it is up to us, to do due diligence, to VOTE THOSE SUCKERS out!!!! But we are lazy too, and corrupt too, in a way..... sigh............

--------------------------------------------------

Replacing Ginsburg with Holder won't change the Republican leaning majority of the Supreme court Justices, it would just keep it the same...5 republican, and 4 Democratic presidential appointed justices, right?

So this is no big deal for either side if it does take place....

Now if a Republican appointed Justice were retiring and Holder were to replace that Justice, THEN AND ONLY THEN would it be a big deal.

The POTUS does NOT "appoint" SCOTUS member. The POTUS submits a 'nominee'...The Senate is charged with the duty of confirming or not confirming the niminee.
Justices do not "rule"..They render legal opinions. The Members then vote on a submitted opinion.
On Bush v Gore, all legal remedies had been exhausted. Surely SCOTUS was loathe to intervene. However, the process of duly electing officials was at an interminable standstill. Simply put, the country needed to close the issue and move forward. Besides, it was Lieberman who stated numerous times that he believed the election should be decided by the courts.
What you believe to be unconstitutional is not at all. You simply disagree on ideological grounds. That is your opinion.
And of course the SCOTUS are not GOP or democrat. Those are political parties.

Please don't rewrite history from your political stance....the SC did not have to get involved.....with State duties and elections....procedures were in place to handle the situation.....there was a couple of weeks left for the state to resolve its problems for its election before the electoral college vote of all states was due to be certified....and even then, if Fla didn't make it in time, then procedure was in place to handle that circumstance as well....it's you that is trying to justify the SC involvement for political purpose.

Right the SC is not gop or dnc....they are APPOINTED by a president that belongs to a party...the Senate advises and consents or not to the Presidents APPOINTMENT.

And correct, they interpret the constitutionality of laws....they don't write law.

Bullshit...SCOTUS was the last in line.
The Court agreed to hear the case as a matter of law.
The fact that you used "Please don't rewrite history" TWICE in successive sentences indicates you are grasping at straws.
I'm not trying to justify anything. I merely pointed out the fact that SCOTUS was asked to write an opinion.
Once again, it was Joe LIeberman that said on numerous occasions that the courts and not Florida State election regulators who should make any decisions.
Remarkably, when SCOTUS opined, the democrats screamed that that they were cheated.
Umm. Your are incorrect. POTUS sends up nominees for SCOTUS. If what you state were true, there would be no need for a process of confirmation.
Whether you like it or not, the US Senate has the final say on all federal bench appointments.
Even though it is clear that you do not know much, you are consistent in that you do not like it when you are called out for being incorrect.
Your other problem is you insist on debating on issues of which you have little knowledge.
Here's an idea. If you do not know, ASK.....

 

[thereisnospoon]

Unfortunately, we as human being have our biases.
This includes Justices of SCOTUS.
In theory, those that serve are intended to be the most brilliant of legal minds available. We would place in them our trust to adhere to the cannons as well as maintaining in their minds, the vision of Justitia as their guide.
I cannot agree with the notion of elected SCOTUS justices.
However, the confirmation process must be adjusted. I believe that a super majority of Senators should be required for confirmation. I also believe a limit on years of service should be discussed and implemented.
I do not support "packing" of the Court with Justices of a certain ideology.
I also believe that POTUS be barred from nominating a new member for SCOTUS within 730 days( 2 years) of the end of their second term.
One other issue. The US Senate should be barred from using the filibuster as a means to prevent a confirmation vote from going to the Floor

The constitution is specific on when a super majority vote is required...or rather a vote greater than a majority such as 2/3s vote for treaties, for war....

All of which can be amended. There is a process for that. Or did you not know?
The process by which government operates is not in place for the purpose of "convenience".

 

[thereisnospoon]

Elections have consequences.

If Obama puts Holder on the SCOTUS he would be the first serving justice that just might be indicted for criminal conspiracy.

The Senate Judiciary committee will rip Holder to shreds. As it did with Clinton nominee Zoe Baird.
The best part is Obama can't scribble his name on a executive order to ram through Holder as a Associate SCOTUS justice

 

[thereisnospoon]

There have been numerous additions and tweaks to the Constitution over the years and this is one that needs it as well. The average lifespan in 1776 was about 35. Now it's around 72 and getting longer. Term limits are long overdue, maybe 10 years IMO.

Electing them like American Idol would be worse than what we have now but I'd like the appointments to be less political somehow. Maybe a 50/50 panel to decide.

Actually the life expectancy for American born people is 78 for men and 80 for women.
For a person born in 1960 the average is 82.8 years

 

[mudwhistle]

Elections have consequences.

If Obama puts Holder on the SCOTUS he would be the first serving justice that just might be indicted for criminal conspiracy.

The Senate Judiciary committee will rip Holder to shreds. As it did with Clinton nominee Zoe Baird.
The best part is Obama can't scribble his name on a executive order to ram through Holder as a Associate SCOTUS justice

He can pardon his butt though.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Horrible idea

 

[BluesLegend]

Politicians are corrupting the SCOTUS just like they work to corrupt every other damn thing in this country. Levin says we need to revisit the Constitution to put a stop to this crap, I'm inclined to think he's right.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
Charged? Where does the constitution say the Supreme Court has authority to interpret the constitution.

And even if we grant them that authority, what part of the constitution did the judges "interpret" when they legalized abortion or forced taxpayers to provide free k-12 for illegals.???????? Fact is judges do not interpret the constitution - they rewrite it and call it an interpretation. THINK

Apparently USMB is just full of posters who've never taken so much as a remedial civics class.
The evidence is clear in that few have any clue how the federal government functions. And even less about the relationship between the Legislative and Judicial branches.

The board notes that all you have is personal attacks. Address the issue or admit i'm right.

 

[Flopper]

Looks like obozo is trying to force ginsberg out so he can put super-racist Eric Hitler on the court where he will likely serve for 30 years with no oversight. Supreme Court judges have given themselves final say on every issue and have also given themselves authority to write laws. Constitution says they can't do it but they do it.

They run the country and they should come up for election every 6 years.

Should Supreme Court Judges Be Popularly Elected?
Not No, but Hell No.

 

[Luissa]

No, end of story

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[
Charged? Where does the constitution say the Supreme Court has authority to interpret the constitution.

And even if we grant them that authority, what part of the constitution did the judges "interpret" when they legalized abortion or forced taxpayers to provide free k-12 for illegals.???????? Fact is judges do not interpret the constitution - they rewrite it and call it an interpretation. THINK

Apparently USMB is just full of posters who've never taken so much as a remedial civics class.
The evidence is clear in that few have any clue how the federal government functions. And even less about the relationship between the Legislative and Judicial branches.

The board notes that all you have is personal attacks. Address the issue or admit i'm right.

The board notes that you're insane, ignorant, and wrong – where stating such facts is not a 'personal attack.'

 

[ShootSpeeders]

No, end of story

The board notes you hate democracy and want every issue settled by 9 un-elected old goats.

 

[Luissa]

No, end of story

The board notes you hate democracy and want every issue settled by 9 un-elected old goats.

You are an idiot. lol

 

[Desperado]

Absolutely not. Try to keep politics out of it.
However, there should be some kind of a "recall" rule if they get to far out of control.
Also there should be a mandatory retirement age.

 

[Luissa]

I guess shoot speeders also thinks the founding fathers hate democracy and forgot we are not a complete democracy but a democratic republic.

 

[Flopper]

Absolutely not. Try to keep politics out of it.
However, there should be some kind of a "recall" rule if they get to far out of control.
Also there should be a mandatory retirement age.

No, a recall provision removes the courts insulation from politics. Justices can be removed now by congress for "high crimes and misdemeanors", that is they can't be remove because they make decisions that go against the party in control of congress. A recall provision would make the tenure in office subject to the pleasing party in power.