BS Filter
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2018
- 43,821
- 26,971
- 2,615
The lottery idea. There's nothing broken with the Supreme Court that needs fixing.Like what?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The lottery idea. There's nothing broken with the Supreme Court that needs fixing.Like what?
Nope. I’d love to have constitutionally honest judges for all time. But that is up to the ebbs and flows of which Administration makes the nominations and which Party has control of the Senate at those times.Ok, but then the left will say “you appointed the judges to achieve a right wing majority…and now you want to lock it that way for decades to come!”
Would that be fair? Also, if you know the size of the scotus will never change, what’s to stop one side one day from “urging” a coupe of the older justices to retire so they can make picks that would lock the court to one favor for the next 30 years.
How about we say the court is locked at 10, but it must be 5 democrats and 5 repubs…and the potus can only appoint justices when one of their side has a vacancy…I know, that won’t work either.
Or better yet, just make sure justices only make decisions based on the letter of the law, guided by the cotus.
I guess my point is, we have enough partisanship in congress, but our court system is supposed to be the one place where everyone gets a fair shake, regardless of what political stance you come from.
I'll NOTE this, so when something doesn't go your way, I'll expect you to still agree that nothing is broken.The lottery idea. There's nothing broken with the Supreme Court that needs fixing.
Of course. I'm allowed to disagree with the decision just like everyone. Obviously, you believe the court is broken. I suspect your reasoning is the fact that the court is going to be majority conservative for a long time, so your plan would at least provide a majority liberal decision once in a while. Right?I'll NOTE this, so when something doesn't go your way, I'll expect you to still agree that nothing is broken.
And your reason would be fear of a liberal decision.Of course. I'm allowed to disagree with the decision just like everyone. Obviously, you believe the court is broken. I suspect your reasoning is the fact that the court is going to be majority conservative for a long time, so your plan would at least provide a majority liberal decision once in a while. Right?
No, not fear. You're attempting to manipulate the Constitution to get advantage. Why not admit it.And your reason would be fear of a liberal decision.
I get it.
And removing that option addresses that problem.I know, both sides want to threaten to stack the court to be able to maintain their political agenda. THAT is the problem. In my mind, justice is supposed to be neutral, not political. I’ve always maintained that the very reason we fight over judicial appointments should be all you need to know about them. Like I said, if justices were all students of the intents and purposes of the constitution, and decided cases based on what the framers wanted the cotus to be, instead of putting their own political slant on it, the number of justices would be irrelevant. I guess I’m asking for too much though.
They do. Within the framework of cases that have been appealed to them.Hmm, I always thought the job of the scotus was to interpret the cotus, and make sure laws and controversies arising from differences in opinion on the cotus were settled with equal justice.
So you want them to be computers?I think any justice who lets their own political bias affect their decisions is unqualified. That’s not what “justice” is supposed to be.
No, it is not 'to much.' It is ignoring reality. We passed to much.And I would hope that anyone who has the mental fortitude to serve on the nations highest court would also have the integrity to be truly non partisan. Again, am I hoping for too much?
Then change the system. Changing by, say, adding limits to ways political actors can influence the court. You know, like packing it?All of them are political picks. I agree, we certainly can dream of a truly unbiased court….but until that is achieved, the scotus will be broken. My opinion….
We will never fix the system if we oppose changes because they are not complete fixes. Setting a constitutional limit on the number of judges is one such way to start fixing it.I believe for it to work properly, it can’t be biased, in any way, because no two parties can agree, so we have to have a court system that takes no influence from either side, and just does what is right by the law.
Again, it’s a pipe dream, especially in todays political climate….maybe one day ….
I assume you read the post I was responding to about having 11 justices for SCOTUS, but 9 hear any given case. The roll of the dice would be which 9 out of the 11 are the justices for a particular case.A row of the dice?
A set order makes sense.I assume you read the post I was responding to about having 11 justices for SCOTUS, but 9 hear any given case. The roll of the dice would be which 9 out of the 11 are the justices for a particular case.
Keep in mind that the purpose of an amendment to the Constitution is to AMEND the Constitution...But the cotus doesn’t specify that. It simply says “the president can nominate….and senate confirm…”. If you do anything to prevent the potus from nominating and the senate approving, the you run afoul of the cotus, because the cotus doesn’t mention vacancies…it just says “potus CAN do….”
Good point. Just so it's clear, I was not supporting or opposing the 11 justice , 9 try a case with 2 alternates idea that I first responded to.A set order makes sense.
A roll of the dice does not. If there is random chance and a particular case comes up, like the one that overturned Roe, it would cause larger problems if it was decided by a chance process. It also would incentivize brining a case or passing a bad law multiple times in an effort to get a favorable roll.
1 per Federal district. Term is 1 year more than the number of district, with the outgoing one serving as Chief Justice in the last year of the term. Districts nominate their own candidates.10 year terms and they are out.....must be nice getting appointed for a life time job.....
LOL. The left do things all the time for political advantage, knowing that they can't get the required votes. They even impeached Trump twice knowing that.Does he think he can get a convention of states or 2/3 of Congress and ultimately approved by 3/4 of the states to achieve this or is he just trying to get in some headlines?
Just like with congressional term limits, I suspect the latter.
Not saying it doesn't happen with Dems too, but impeachment is a bad example. That isn't legislation or policy.LOL. The left do things all the time for political advantage, knowing that they can't get the required votes. They even impeached Trump twice knowing that.
LOL. Well, it certainly was policy and fits right in with what you were talking about. You were against Cruz for proposing something that had little chance of passing even as Democrats impeached Trump twice, knowing he wouldn't be removed from office both times. We've also had the dems proposing more seats to the Supreme Court, adding blue states to the Union, and wanting to change the electoral college, all close to impossible. Didn't see you calling out the dems on any of that.Not saying it doesn't happen with Dems too, but impeachment is a bad example. That isn't legislation or policy.
I wasn't necessarily against it, certainly he has that right; I was just pointing out the futility of such legislation... especially since many don't realize the difficulty of constitutional amendments. (Think congressional term limits as an example that people seem to think Congress can just vote for it).LOL. Well, it certainly was policy and fits right in with what you were talking about. You were against Cruz for proposing something that had little chance of passing even as Democrats impeached Trump twice, knowing he wouldn't be removed from office both times. We've also had the dems proposing more seats to the Supreme Court, adding blue states to the Union, and wanting to change the electoral college, all close to impossible. Didn't see you calling out the dems on any of that.
Very same futility of Trump's two impeachments as well as the other things I pointed out.I wasn't necessarily against it, certainly he has that right; I was just pointing out the futility of such legislation... especially since many don't realize the difficulty of constitutional amendments. (Think congressional term limits as an example that people seem to think Congress can just vote for it).
Adding more seats to the supreme court does not require a constitutional amendment.
I do appose changes to the electorial college but I don't really see those types of thread on these sites.
That said, if your point is I am more inclined to judge Republican policy, sure; me and literally everyone else on this board is the same way to widely varying degrees.
Nope. I’d love to have constitutionally honest judges for all time. But that is up to the ebbs and flows of which Administration makes the nominations and which Party has control of the Senate at those times.
What we don’t want is the court packing shit where you simply add more justices nominated based on the needs of the moment to fully politicize the court.
And removing that option addresses that problem.
The number of justices will never be irrelevent to that fact. If the option remains to add justices when those in power see it as a viable option to increase it they will.
Wanting that to not be the case is just silly. That is about as effective as yelling at the clouds. If you want to change it then you need to change the process.
They do. Within the framework of cases that have been appealed to them.
So you want them to be computers?
What is the 'correct' interpretation of the second amendment? If a judge were to disagree with that interpretation are they then unqualified? What are you using to measure said political bias and where is the line?
Essentially you have said a lot of meaningless platitudes. Everyone says they do not want political biases to effect the court but, once again, that is flatly impossible in a system that includes people. Particularly when those people are specifically tasked with interpretation that effects 350 million people.
No, it is not 'to much.' It is ignoring reality. We passed to much.
Then change the system. Changing by, say, adding limits to ways political actors can influence the court. You know, like packing it?
We will never fix the system if we oppose changes because they are not complete fixes. Setting a constitutional limit on the number of judges is one such way to start fixing it.
I just wish that was Cruz' actual intent. Like I said, the form of the bill shows it is just political games.
So you want them to be computers?
What is the 'correct' interpretation of the second amendment? If a judge were to disagree with that interpretation are they then unqualified? What are you using to measure said political bias and where is the line?