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

[$ecular#eckler]

I'm opposed to various interpretations of the Constitution and described to be a Liberal. I bet I listened to more Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin than you.

 

[Lesh]

I'm opposed to various interpretations of the Constitution and described to be a Liberal. I bet I listened to more Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin than you.

All the more reason to ignore anything you say then

 

[bripat9643]

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.

SL Chartering System - US4CC

US4CC

www.us4cc.info

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.

Who would do it then?

 

[InspectorDetector]

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.

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."

Article I. Section 5.

This section is what leads to the political chaos. The concepts described should be secured with definite details that are enforced by the judiciary, and any lawyer should be able to recognize the tremendous inadequacies here. Let's go through it. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections...

www.usmessageboard.com

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?

Hmmm.....I don't recall any of you fascists being pissed off when the SCOTUS was in YOUR favor. So yeah, screw the fascists......all day, every day.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

Try that post again in English, please!

 

[$ecular#eckler]

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.

Who would do it then?

The people who are inclined, talented and skilled at interpreting and composing directive systems. For the most part it will be scholars of various fields and legal practitioners, maybe some engineers and computer programmers. These are people who are practiced at comprehending large blocks of new information that challenges their subsisting ideas and rules about topics.

There is no sense in inviting people who are determined to argue against reordering the charter system - they will have their opportunity to present their arguments during the campaign period for a district referendum following a convention validation of a serviceable new charter. (consider the Federalist Papers vs. the Anti-federlists campaign period)

I see it as a three-level series beginning at the municipal level; although, more than likely, a state will probably organize/direct several of its municipalities to try different charter formats. The conventions will be trial runs of the anticipated legislatures to build the directive systems for the anticipated charter.

A Better Subdivisioning of the Three-part Model will Provide Better Checks & Balances

http://www.us4cc.info

www.usmessageboard.com

The first official step for a charter convention is the submission of a petition requesting state sanctioned supervision for a convention. Contrary to popular belief, state legislatures are not uniquely authorized to organize a charter convention. Anybody, and everybody is welcome to compose a government charter candidate. There is no law prohibiting concerned citizens from organizing charter drafting parties, and then campaigning their product for convention challenges.

Compelling agreement to the quality of the charter candidate for actual serviceability is the hard part. There are several major steps to adopting a new constitution, and many steps in between each of those major steps. The first major step will be the difficultly encountered in trying to convince a court supervisor to accept a charter candidate. The court supervisor will require as much detail as can be comprehended that directs the gathering of people to advance the charter candidate to a convention that can validate its serviceability before it can be presented for a referendum.

Composing directive systems that guide people to compose directive systems for organizing government is an extremely difficult task. It should be understood that composing directive systems (rules) is the key skill that will be sought of delegates to any modern convention - honorary delegates with no skills for writing rules are not needed. Grievances of the subsisting system are unnecessary, as well, and thus far, none are as accurate as the grievances and solutions described in this publication. Those seeking to “voice their grievances,” should be accommodated by their constituent convention, but it is the composing of directive systems that define the government operations that solve the grievances that is of premium value to the endeavor of conventions. Plenty of people may seek fame for voicing their grievances at their local conventions, but none will be as well memorialized like those who contribute reliable directive systems that provide for the better approach to just government.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Who would do it then?

The people who are inclined, talented and skilled at interpreting and composing directive systems. For the most part it will be scholars of various fields and legal practitioners, maybe some engineers and computer programmers. These are people who are practiced at comprehending large blocks of new information that challenges their subsisting ideas and rules about topics.

I see it as a three-level series beginning at the municipal level; although, more than likely, a state will probably organize/direct several of its municipalities to try different charter formats.

A Better Subdivisioning of the Three-part Model will Provide Better Checks & Balances

http://www.us4cc.info

www.usmessageboard.com

The first official step for a charter convention is the submission of a petition requesting state sanctioned supervision for a convention. Contrary to popular belief, state legislatures are not uniquely authorized to organize a charter convention. Anybody, and everybody is welcome to compose a government charter candidate. There is no law prohibiting concerned citizens from organizing charter drafting parties, and then campaigning their product for convention challenges.

Compelling agreement to the quality of the charter candidate for actual serviceability is the hard part. There are several major steps to adopting a new constitution, and many steps in between each of those major steps. The first major step will be the difficultly encountered in trying to convince a court supervisor to accept a charter candidate. The court supervisor will require as much detail as can be comprehended that directs the gathering of people to advance the charter candidate to a convention that can validate its serviceability before it can be presented for a referendum.

Composing directive systems that guide people to compose directive systems for organizing government is an extremely difficult task. It should be understood that composing directive systems (rules) is the key skill that will be sought of delegates to any modern convention - honorary delegates with no skills for writing rules are not needed. Grievances of the subsisting system are unnecessary, as well, and thus far, none are as accurate as the grievances and solutions described in this publication. Those seeking to “voice their grievances,” should be accommodated by their constituent convention, but it is the composing of directive systems that define the government operations that solve the grievances that is of premium value to the endeavor of conventions. Plenty of people may seek fame for voicing their grievances at their local conventions, but none will be as well memorialized like those who contribute reliable directive systems that provide for the better approach to just government.

It will be scumbag politicians. Who do you think you're fooling?

 

[$ecular#eckler]

It will be scumbag politicians. Who do you think you're fooling?

I'm fooling the "scumbag politicians."
They're not going to be able to pull-off the runaway convention that empowers their agendas - there will be too many honest legal practitioners who will be competing for recognition in installing the more just system that succeeds the almighty United States Constitution.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

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.

This is a symptom of the lack of separation of the judiciary from the other branches. If the judiciary were correctly separated then the appointments of offices would be by those who work in the court system, including the litigation attorneys.

If you, an uncelebrated attorney, is able to recognize incompetent court supervisors who do not get promoted after years of service . . .???

Is there any published article describing this phenomenon that you can direct me to?

 

[whitehall]

We haven't even had a decision from the Court and the left is already whining about the unfairness of it all.