What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Supreme Court doesn't differentiate between members of the Supreme Court and other federal judges

Leviticus

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2021
Messages
374
Reaction score
345
Points
183
The only position in the Supreme Court that is actually mentioned and established by name in the Constitution is the chief justice.

the associate justices are not officially established as a position on the court in the Constitution. The details were ironed out later after the Constitution had already been written.

Other than the chief justice, all members of the Supreme Court are simply considered federal judges and are treated as federal judges.

For this reason it would not require a constitutional amendment to reform the Supreme Court, since the Constitution does not actually include the specific requirements of a how a Supreme Court Justice is appointed they are appointed the exact same way that federal judges are and are considered the same as other federal judges. The Supreme Court does not have a specific appointment system separate from other federal courts.

There have been several suggestions of how the Supreme Court could be reformed.

one is that we take local appointments completely out of the picture and have a lottery system which create a minimum set of standards for who is allowed to be on the court, and allows each party to Place several nominees into a lottery system which would randomly select members. This would work out great since it would mean that the parties would be less inclined to appoint there more extremist members because of the danger of the other party's extremist being selected they would most likely work out some deal where moderate would be appointed and the court would be a wrong water it institution as a result.

Another suggestion is that the Supreme Court be broken up into various panels, and that all federal judges be required to serve on panels effectively meaning the off appointed federal judges would also serve as Supreme Court Justices. This could actually work out quite well as well, since it would not only allow for a more diverse Supreme Court, but would allow the court to hear far more cases with they're being far more justices at any given time to hear cases, and multiple cases could be held at any given time with different panels. The Chief Justice with then be free to run the course overall, overseeing the various panels activities, and will only really need to actively take a role in cases where the Constitution requires him to such as during impeachments.
Those two ideas could actually be done simultaneously, since the lottery system could apply to the entire federal court system and not just the Supreme Court.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
11,477
Reaction score
6,941
Points
918
Yes, no Constitution amendment is needed. We have changed the make up at times, and finally settled on this number in 1869. I am not sure what has occurred or change is such a drastic why that we need to change up the number after the last 150 years.

If you want to change it form a lifetime appointment, maybe...but that does take a Constitutional amendment.
 

Osiris-ODS

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
2,444
Reaction score
1,967
Points
1,940
Your second suggestion is terrible. I practice in federal court, at both the trial and appellate levels. The difference between judges at the district court level and the circuit court/Supreme Court level in terms of legal acumen and capacity to understand complex fact patterns is profound. There is a reason our very smartest jurists sit on appellate panels, and most district court judges remain at that station for their entire carreers as judges. There are some really bad district court judges. Calling them up on a rotation to SCOTUS to decide matters that become law of the land would spell disaster.
 

Lesh

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
32,662
Reaction score
12,480
Points
1,560
The make up of the Court has changed many times in our history> Nothing precludes even term limiting time on the bench
 

Jarlaxle

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2012
Messages
18,790
Reaction score
2,831
Points
245
Location
New England
The make up of the Court has changed many times in our history> Nothing precludes even term limiting time on the bench
Yes, it does-making it anything but a lifetime appointment would require an amendment.
 

Lesh

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
32,662
Reaction score
12,480
Points
1,560
Yes, it does-making it anything but a lifetime appointment would require an amendment.
Nothing in the Constitution says anything of the sort. Quote the relevant passage if you dispute that
 

Jarlaxle

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2012
Messages
18,790
Reaction score
2,831
Points
245
Location
New England
Nothing in the Constitution says anything of the sort. Quote the relevant passage if you dispute that

Article 3, section 1:
" The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour..."

They can only be removed for misconduct.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
144,897
Reaction score
33,168
Points
2,180
The only position in the Supreme Court that is actually mentioned and established by name in the Constitution is the chief justice.

the associate justices are not officially established as a position on the court in the Constitution. The details were ironed out later after the Constitution had already been written.

Other than the chief justice, all members of the Supreme Court are simply considered federal judges and are treated as federal judges.

For this reason it would not require a constitutional amendment to reform the Supreme Court, since the Constitution does not actually include the specific requirements of a how a Supreme Court Justice is appointed they are appointed the exact same way that federal judges are and are considered the same as other federal judges. The Supreme Court does not have a specific appointment system separate from other federal courts.

There have been several suggestions of how the Supreme Court could be reformed.

one is that we take local appointments completely out of the picture and have a lottery system which create a minimum set of standards for who is allowed to be on the court, and allows each party to Place several nominees into a lottery system which would randomly select members. This would work out great since it would mean that the parties would be less inclined to appoint there more extremist members because of the danger of the other party's extremist being selected they would most likely work out some deal where moderate would be appointed and the court would be a wrong water it institution as a result.

Another suggestion is that the Supreme Court be broken up into various panels, and that all federal judges be required to serve on panels effectively meaning the off appointed federal judges would also serve as Supreme Court Justices. This could actually work out quite well as well, since it would not only allow for a more diverse Supreme Court, but would allow the court to hear far more cases with they're being far more justices at any given time to hear cases, and multiple cases could be held at any given time with different panels. The Chief Justice with then be free to run the course overall, overseeing the various panels activities, and will only really need to actively take a role in cases where the Constitution requires him to such as during impeachments.
Those two ideas could actually be done simultaneously, since the lottery system could apply to the entire federal court system and not just the Supreme Court.
Any proposal by a leftwinger to "reform" the Supreme Court is just another scam to eviscerate it.
 

Prof.Lunaphiles

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2020
Messages
2,588
Reaction score
1,708
Points
938
Location
Transient
The difference between judges at the district court level and the circuit court/Supreme Court level in terms of legal acumen and capacity to understand complex fact patterns is profound.
"Complex fact patterns." Is that a common term in legal scholarship?

Interesting, you are the second or third legal practitioner I have encountered, here - doesn't it seem like a waste of your thought processes? The lack of dialectic rules???

I think we need a complete overhaul of the three levels of government. I believe the checks and balances do not work because the three-part separation is inadequate. Any error in the construction of the three parts skews the balance and the checks on power.

How can any entity be separate if it is dependent on the other entities to graduate its hierarchy of offices???
 
Last edited:

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
144,897
Reaction score
33,168
Points
2,180
The difference between judges at the district court level and the circuit court/Supreme Court level in terms of legal acumen and capacity to understand complex fact patterns is profound.
"Complex fact patterns." Is that a common term in legal scholarship?
Interesting, you are the second or third legal practitioner I have encountered, here - doesn't it seem like a waste of your thought processes? The lack of dialectic rules???

I think we need a complete overhaul of the three levels. I believe the checks and balances do not work because the three-part separation is inadequate. Any error in the construction of the three parts skews the balance and the checks on power.
WE would have to be stupid to allow the current gang of crooks in Washington overhaul anything.
 
Last edited:

Prof.Lunaphiles

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2020
Messages
2,588
Reaction score
1,708
Points
938
Location
Transient
The difference between judges at the district court level and the circuit court/Supreme Court level in terms of legal acumen and capacity to understand complex fact patterns is profound.
"Complex fact patterns." Is that a common term in legal scholarship?
Interesting, you are the second or third legal practitioner I have encountered, here - doesn't it seem like a waste of your thought processes? The lack of dialectic rules???

I think we need a complete overhaul of the three levels. I believe the checks and balances do not work because the three-part separation is inadequate. Any error in the construction of the three parts skews the balance and the checks on power.
WE would have to stupid to allow the current gang of crooks in Washington overhaul anything.
I am not suggesting that they do the work. You just don't know how to think outside the box that your third-grade teacher put you in.
 

Prof.Lunaphiles

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2020
Messages
2,588
Reaction score
1,708
Points
938
Location
Transient
The difference between judges at the district court level and the circuit court/Supreme Court level in terms of legal acumen and capacity to understand complex fact patterns is profound.
"Complex fact patterns." Is that a common term in legal scholarship?
I found the wikipedia article
 
OP
L

Leviticus

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2021
Messages
374
Reaction score
345
Points
183
The make up of the Court has changed many times in our history> Nothing precludes even term limiting time on the bench
Term limits would be irrelevent since the condyitution states that they serve for life. Changing thstveould rewuite an smentnent
 

InspectorDetector

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2021
Messages
911
Reaction score
1,055
Points
898
The only position in the Supreme Court that is actually mentioned and established by name in the Constitution is the chief justice.

the associate justices are not officially established as a position on the court in the Constitution. The details were ironed out later after the Constitution had already been written.

Other than the chief justice, all members of the Supreme Court are simply considered federal judges and are treated as federal judges.

For this reason it would not require a constitutional amendment to reform the Supreme Court, since the Constitution does not actually include the specific requirements of a how a Supreme Court Justice is appointed they are appointed the exact same way that federal judges are and are considered the same as other federal judges. The Supreme Court does not have a specific appointment system separate from other federal courts.

There have been several suggestions of how the Supreme Court could be reformed.

one is that we take local appointments completely out of the picture and have a lottery system which create a minimum set of standards for who is allowed to be on the court, and allows each party to Place several nominees into a lottery system which would randomly select members. This would work out great since it would mean that the parties would be less inclined to appoint there more extremist members because of the danger of the other party's extremist being selected they would most likely work out some deal where moderate would be appointed and the court would be a wrong water it institution as a result.

Another suggestion is that the Supreme Court be broken up into various panels, and that all federal judges be required to serve on panels effectively meaning the off appointed federal judges would also serve as Supreme Court Justices. This could actually work out quite well as well, since it would not only allow for a more diverse Supreme Court, but would allow the court to hear far more cases with they're being far more justices at any given time to hear cases, and multiple cases could be held at any given time with different panels. The Chief Justice with then be free to run the course overall, overseeing the various panels activities, and will only really need to actively take a role in cases where the Constitution requires him to such as during impeachments.
Those two ideas could actually be done simultaneously, since the lottery system could apply to the entire federal court system and not just the Supreme Court.


Question: Why the hell does the SCOTUS need to be "reformed"? Is it because there aren't enough liberal assholes to make the fascists happy? Hmmmmm.....I believe that is the right answer........
 

InspectorDetector

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2021
Messages
911
Reaction score
1,055
Points
898
The difference between judges at the district court level and the circuit court/Supreme Court level in terms of legal acumen and capacity to understand complex fact patterns is profound.
"Complex fact patterns." Is that a common term in legal scholarship?
Interesting, you are the second or third legal practitioner I have encountered, here - doesn't it seem like a waste of your thought processes? The lack of dialectic rules???

I think we need a complete overhaul of the three levels. I believe the checks and balances do not work because the three-part separation is inadequate. Any error in the construction of the three parts skews the balance and the checks on power.
WE would have to be stupid to allow the current gang of crooks in Washington overhaul anything.

THANK YOU!!!!
 

Prof.Lunaphiles

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2020
Messages
2,588
Reaction score
1,708
Points
938
Location
Transient
There have been several suggestions of how the Supreme Court could be reformed.
Question: Why the hell does the SCOTUS need to be "reformed"? Is it because there aren't enough liberal assholes to make the fascists happy? Hmmmmm.....I believe that is the right answer........
The Supreme Court needs to be reformed, because it needs to be completely separated from the other branches, and its mission needs to be adjusted to supervise the legislatures to eliminate the stupid shit that goes on.

There is a major problem with the people's understanding of a constitution. It is absurd for there to be accepted that there are various possible interpretations of a constitution. A constitution is supposed to be the rules for the government and the courts are supposed to enforce those rules on the government for the people.

Article I Section 5 is just complete absurd - there is no way a modern society would allow the legislatures to make their own rules, much less detracting anything from the journal. You would think one of these brilliant Black scholars would have figured this out. :eusa_doh:
1: Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

3: Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

4: Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

It is very difficult for the average citizen to comprehend anything other than term limits as a possible solution to the problems that we endure; but I am brilliant. And then there are those who are jealous because they could not recognize the obvious errors and their detrimental effects on "politics."
As you can review, nobody can defend Article 1 Section 5
 
Last edited:

InspectorDetector

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2021
Messages
911
Reaction score
1,055
Points
898
There have been several suggestions of how the Supreme Court could be reformed.
Question: Why the hell does the SCOTUS need to be "reformed"? Is it because there aren't enough liberal assholes to make the fascists happy? Hmmmmm.....I believe that is the right answer........
The Supreme Court needs to be reformed, because it needs to be completely separated from the other branches, and its mission needs to be adjusted to supervise the legislatures to eliminate the stupid shit that goes on.

There is a major problem with the people's understanding of a constitution. It is absurd for there to be accepted that there are various possible interpretations of a constitution. A constitution is supposed to be the rules for the government and the courts are supposed to enforce those rules on the government for the people.

Article I Section 5 is just complete absurd - there is no way a modern society would allow the legislatures to make their own rules, much less detracting anything from the journal. You would think one of these brilliant Black scholars would have figured this out. :eusa_doh:
1: Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

3: Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

4: Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

It is very difficult for the average citizen to comprehend anything other than term limits as a possible solution to the problems that we endure; but I am brilliant. And then there are those who are jealous because they could not recognize the obvious errors and their detrimental effects on "politics."
As you can review, nobody can defend Article 1 Section 5


Well, sir (or Madame) I am a very "average" citizen and damned proud of it - only a BA. However, I know this to be FACT; it wasn't until you fascist liberals got your panties in a wad when the court was settled with the current selection of Judges. Therefore, it can only be argued that you guys have a distinct "problem" with a conservative SCOTUS. Pisses you off, doesn't it?
 

Lesh

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
32,662
Reaction score
12,480
Points
1,560
The make up of the Court has changed many times in our history> Nothing precludes even term limiting time on the bench
Term limits would be irrelevent since the condyitution states that they serve for life. Changing thstveould rewuite an smentnent
No it doesn't. Put down the bottle
 

Lesh

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
32,662
Reaction score
12,480
Points
1,560
There have been several suggestions of how the Supreme Court could be reformed.
Question: Why the hell does the SCOTUS need to be "reformed"? Is it because there aren't enough liberal assholes to make the fascists happy? Hmmmmm.....I believe that is the right answer........
The Supreme Court needs to be reformed, because it needs to be completely separated from the other branches, and its mission needs to be adjusted to supervise the legislatures to eliminate the stupid shit that goes on.

There is a major problem with the people's understanding of a constitution. It is absurd for there to be accepted that there are various possible interpretations of a constitution. A constitution is supposed to be the rules for the government and the courts are supposed to enforce those rules on the government for the people.

Article I Section 5 is just complete absurd - there is no way a modern society would allow the legislatures to make their own rules, much less detracting anything from the journal. You would think one of these brilliant Black scholars would have figured this out. :eusa_doh:
1: Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

3: Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

4: Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

It is very difficult for the average citizen to comprehend anything other than term limits as a possible solution to the problems that we endure; but I am brilliant. And then there are those who are jealous because they could not recognize the obvious errors and their detrimental effects on "politics."
As you can review, nobody can defend Article 1 Section 5


Well, sir (or Madame) I am a very "average" citizen and damned proud of it - only a BA. However, I know this to be FACT; it wasn't until you fascist liberals got your panties in a wad when the court was settled with the current selection of Judges. Therefore, it can only be argued that you guys have a distinct "problem" with a conservative SCOTUS. Pisses you off, doesn't it?
And "own the Libs" is ALL your party stands for. Screw the American people, right?
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$142.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top