https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/03/21/politic...index.html

Older article but quality and insightful read. Whenever someone talks about the integrity of the Court and the how they are the only branch that separates politics from law, you can point to this and tell them they are full of crap.

Roberts when against his findings and made a political deal to try and come up with an amicable solution that both parties could live with. THAT IS NOT HIS JOB. He took it upon himself to become the Wise King Solomon and convinced 2 liberal justices to kill Medicaid expansion in exchange for his vote to save the law as a whole.

That is basic politics and incredibly scary that 9 unelected officials have taken it upon themselves to ignore the law and do what they please

that's what happens when one has tenure right out of the 'gait'....

the founders whiffed that one (intentionally)

(09-12-2019 12:53 PM)solohawks Wrote:  https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/03/21/politic...index.html

Older article but quality and insightful read. Whenever someone talks about the integrity of the Court and the how they are the only branch that separates politics from law, you can point to this and tell them they are full of crap.

Roberts when against his findings and made a political deal to try and come up with an amicable solution that both parties could live with. THAT IS NOT HIS JOB. He took it upon himself to become the Wise King Solomon and convinced 2 liberal justices to kill Medicaid expansion in exchange for his vote to save the law as a whole.

That is basic politics and incredibly scary that 9 unelected officials have taken it upon themselves to ignore the law and do what they please

The thing that should also be considered is the 'lockstep' issue. I saw a news note that was out earlier this month that went into the how often the Justices voted together and compared them to the perceived political stance that they hold.

The article is labeled as opinion, but, it should be noted that the author is Ilya Shapiro, a quite noted Constitutional law and Supreme Court scholar.

In 5-4 decisions, none of Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor ever broke from the 'liberal' political outcome (when one can be perceived) ever. In short, there is ample statistical evidence of the absolute lack of crossover votes for close losses and close wins.

Same holds for 6-3 decisions having a noted political stance.

In contrast the there is far more examples and times when any three of Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and now Kavanaugh will not vote in lockstep fashion.

In short, the supposed 'conservative' judges crossover to vote with the progressive bloc far more than the 'progressive bent Justices' cross over and vote with a conservative bloc.

(09-12-2019 01:26 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  that's what happens when one has tenure right out of the 'gait'....

the founders whiffed that one (intentionally)

To be fair, the Founders warned us that our form of government would only work as long as the people had the utmost integrity.


To quote:

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.”

(09-12-2019 12:53 PM)solohawks Wrote:  incredibly scary that 9 unelected officials have taken it upon themselves to ignore the law and do what they please

A committee of 9 unelected lawyers with life-tenure, deliberating in secret and issuing unappealable decrees when the mood strikes them, for a nation of 325 million people?

What’s so scary about that??

(09-12-2019 01:34 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 01:26 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  that's what happens when one has tenure right out of the 'gait'....

the founders whiffed that one (intentionally)

To be fair, the Founders warned us that our form of government would only work as long as the people had the utmost integrity.


To quote:

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.”

which is XACLY! why they whiffed that one intentionally to preserve the train of thought moving forward...

if one is intellectually honest, they would easily understand that in scope...

"moral and religious" being the shared theme...

there's many a valid reason we're a republic and not a true democracy....

(09-12-2019 01:41 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 12:53 PM)solohawks Wrote:  incredibly scary that 9 unelected officials have taken it upon themselves to ignore the law and do what they please

A committee of 9 unelected lawyers with life-tenure, deliberating in secret and issuing unappealable decrees when the mood strikes them, for a nation of 325 million people?

What’s so scary about that??

How else would you decide the ultimate questions about what is legal?

The only alternatives in the entire world are:
1) Dictatorship.
2) Oligarchy - dictatorship by a small group rather than one person
3) Iran - the Guardian Council has powers similar to our Supreme Court, but its members are appointed to 6-year terms by the Supreme Leader (not by the Prime Minister)
4) UK-style parliamentary systems. Parliament is sovereign. The Prime Minister is elected by Parliament, so a Parliamentary majority is all that is required to completely change ANYTHING.

Look at the UK today - they're in the middle of their biggest political decision in 4 decades, and the Prime Minister unilaterally decided to suspend Parliament. Is that legal? Well, it's legal because the Prime Minister says it's legal. But he's not exactly a neutral 3rd party referee.

(09-12-2019 01:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 12:53 PM)solohawks Wrote:  https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/03/21/politic...index.html

Older article but quality and insightful read. Whenever someone talks about the integrity of the Court and the how they are the only branch that separates politics from law, you can point to this and tell them they are full of crap.

Roberts when against his findings and made a political deal to try and come up with an amicable solution that both parties could live with. THAT IS NOT HIS JOB. He took it upon himself to become the Wise King Solomon and convinced 2 liberal justices to kill Medicaid expansion in exchange for his vote to save the law as a whole.

That is basic politics and incredibly scary that 9 unelected officials have taken it upon themselves to ignore the law and do what they please

The thing that should also be considered is the 'lockstep' issue. I saw a news note that was out earlier this month that went into the how often the Justices voted together and compared them to the perceived political stance that they hold.

The article is labeled as opinion, but, it should be noted that the author is Ilya Shapiro, a quite noted Constitutional law and Supreme Court scholar.

In 5-4 decisions, none of Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor ever broke from the 'liberal' political outcome (when one can be perceived) ever. In short, there is ample statistical evidence of the absolute lack of crossover votes for close losses and close wins.

Same holds for 6-3 decisions having a noted political stance.

In contrast the there is far more examples and times when any three of Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and now Kavanaugh will not vote in lockstep fashion.

In short, the supposed 'conservative' judges crossover to vote with the progressive bloc far more than the 'progressive bent Justices' cross over and vote with a conservative bloc.

I recently heard it stated that in the short time they've been there Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have been on opposite sides of ruling some 30% of the time.

Hardly a lockstep approach, from either of them.

Libs, on the other hand, gonna Lib.

(09-13-2019 11:32 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 01:41 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  A committee of 9 unelected lawyers with life-tenure, deliberating in secret and issuing unappealable decrees when the mood strikes them, for a nation of 325 million people?

What’s so scary about that??

How else would you decide the ultimate questions about what is legal?

The only alternatives in the entire world are:
1) Dictatorship.
2) Oligarchy - dictatorship by a small group rather than one person
3) Iran - the Guardian Council has powers similar to our Supreme Court, but its members are appointed to 6-year terms by the Supreme Leader (not by the Prime Minister)
4) UK-style parliamentary systems. Parliament is sovereign. The Prime Minister is elected by Parliament, so a Parliamentary majority is all that is required to completely change ANYTHING.

#2 is not an “alternative” to America’s current system; it IS America’s current system.

Response to your question: if I had the power to do it, I would impose term-limits on all Article III judges. Can be flexible on the exact # of years, but leaning towards 12 as the limit. And if a judge dies/resigns in the middle, the replacement doesn’t start with a “new” 12-year term but just finishes the one they inherited.

And: I would implement some system whereby decisions could be overturned. As with the term-limits, I can be flexible on the details. But two possible scenarios: votes to overturn by a majority of the US House and a majority of the US Senate, and the consent of the President. Or, perhaps three-fifths vote in each House, without the consent of the President.

Also, I would absolutely strip District-Court judges of the power to issue nationwide injunctions against the Federal Government.

(09-13-2019 11:32 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 01:41 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 12:53 PM)solohawks Wrote:  incredibly scary that 9 unelected officials have taken it upon themselves to ignore the law and do what they please

A committee of 9 unelected lawyers with life-tenure, deliberating in secret and issuing unappealable decrees when the mood strikes them, for a nation of 325 million people?

What’s so scary about that??

How else would you decide the ultimate questions about what is legal?

The only alternatives in the entire world are:
1) Dictatorship.
2) Oligarchy - dictatorship by a small group rather than one person
3) Iran - the Guardian Council has powers similar to our Supreme Court, but its members are appointed to 6-year terms by the Supreme Leader (not by the Prime Minister)
4) UK-style parliamentary systems. Parliament is sovereign. The Prime Minister is elected by Parliament, so a Parliamentary majority is all that is required to completely change ANYTHING.

Look at the UK today - they're in the middle of their biggest political decision in 4 decades, and the Prime Minister unilaterally decided to suspend Parliament. Is that legal? Well, it's legal because the Prime Minister says it's legal. But he's not exactly a neutral 3rd party referee.

I think Trump should decide. It isn't a dictatorship, more a democratic monarchy... he doesn't make the laws and his power is constitutionally limited, he just holds court. The world is fast paced. There really isn't time to pontificate and he needs to be able to do his job.

(09-13-2019 11:32 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 01:41 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 12:53 PM)solohawks Wrote:  incredibly scary that 9 unelected officials have taken it upon themselves to ignore the law and do what they please

A committee of 9 unelected lawyers with life-tenure, deliberating in secret and issuing unappealable decrees when the mood strikes them, for a nation of 325 million people?

What’s so scary about that??

How else would you decide the ultimate questions about what is legal?

The only alternatives in the entire world are:
1) Dictatorship.
2) Oligarchy - dictatorship by a small group rather than one person
3) Iran - the Guardian Council has powers similar to our Supreme Court, but its members are appointed to 6-year terms by the Supreme Leader (not by the Prime Minister)
4) UK-style parliamentary systems. Parliament is sovereign. The Prime Minister is elected by Parliament, so a Parliamentary majority is all that is required to completely change ANYTHING.

Look at the UK today - they're in the middle of their biggest political decision in 4 decades, and the Prime Minister unilaterally decided to suspend Parliament. Is that legal? Well, it's legal because the Prime Minister says it's legal. But he's not exactly a neutral 3rd party referee.

Fair question

Right now we have 9 unelected monarchs

If they are going to act like psuedo politicians than they need to be treated as such. The last thing we need is more nationalized elections so popular vote for SC justices is out.

Right off the bat I would give them terms limits of 12 years and have 3 replaced every election. After every presidential election, the House would get to appoint 1 judge, the Senate would get to appoint 1 judge, and the President would get to appoint 1 judge.

An alternative would be to have 13 SC justices with each of the 12 circuits serving as a district whose population gets to elect a Justice to a 12 year term. 4 Justices would be up for election every 3 years.. The president would get to appoint the 13th judge and that would be the Chief Justice who gets a 20 year term.

"https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/trump-defends-brett-kavanaugh-after-sexual-misconduct-allegations-resurface-n1054581"

Isn't it amazing that Orangeman knows everything that did or didn't happen at every party BK ever attended?

(09-15-2019 04:08 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  "https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/trump-defends-brett-kavanaugh-after-sexual-misconduct-allegations-resurface-n1054581"

Isn't it amazing that Orangeman knows everything that did or didn't happen at every party BK ever attended?

Very strange way of expressing an allegation that the woman involved has gone on record saying she does not recall it.

(09-15-2019 04:08 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  "https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/trump-defends-brett-kavanaugh-after-sexual-misconduct-allegations-resurface-n1054581"

Isn't it amazing that Orangeman knows everything that did or didn't happen at every party BK ever attended?

Isn’t it amazing that NONE of this came up in 40 years and numerous background checks, vetting and confirmation hearings?

Even more amazing that someone would leave their best friend behind at a drunken party with two alleged attempted rapists in the house? And no one ever heard these allegations or bothered to check up on her in the hours, days, or weeks to follow?

Agreed, LOTS of amazing here.

(09-13-2019 07:40 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-13-2019 11:32 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 01:41 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 12:53 PM)solohawks Wrote:  incredibly scary that 9 unelected officials have taken it upon themselves to ignore the law and do what they please

A committee of 9 unelected lawyers with life-tenure, deliberating in secret and issuing unappealable decrees when the mood strikes them, for a nation of 325 million people?

What’s so scary about that??

How else would you decide the ultimate questions about what is legal?

The only alternatives in the entire world are:
1) Dictatorship.
2) Oligarchy - dictatorship by a small group rather than one person
3) Iran - the Guardian Council has powers similar to our Supreme Court, but its members are appointed to 6-year terms by the Supreme Leader (not by the Prime Minister)
4) UK-style parliamentary systems. Parliament is sovereign. The Prime Minister is elected by Parliament, so a Parliamentary majority is all that is required to completely change ANYTHING.

Look at the UK today - they're in the middle of their biggest political decision in 4 decades, and the Prime Minister unilaterally decided to suspend Parliament. Is that legal? Well, it's legal because the Prime Minister says it's legal. But he's not exactly a neutral 3rd party referee.

Fair question

Right now we have 9 unelected monarchs

If they are going to act like psuedo politicians than they need to be treated as such. The last thing we need is more nationalized elections so popular vote for SC justices is out.

Right off the bat I would give them terms limits of 12 years and have 3 replaced every election. After every presidential election, the House would get to appoint 1 judge, the Senate would get to appoint 1 judge, and the President would get to appoint 1 judge.

An alternative would be to have 13 SC justices with each of the 12 circuits serving as a district whose population gets to elect a Justice to a 12 year term. 4 Justices would be up for election every 3 years.. The president would get to appoint the 13th judge and that would be the Chief Justice who gets a 20 year term.

Judges shouldn't have to run election campaigns.

If judges have to campaign, then the winners are the best politicians, not the best jurists.

I'd be ok with a term limit for judges. I'd say each Presidential election gets to appoint 2 justices to 20 year terms, for 10 justices. Sure, there will be ties, but that's an advantage. It means nothing gets overturned by only 1 vote.

The reason for 10 justices is because that way no president ever appoints half the court.

(09-15-2019 06:44 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-13-2019 07:40 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-13-2019 11:32 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 01:41 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 12:53 PM)solohawks Wrote:  incredibly scary that 9 unelected officials have taken it upon themselves to ignore the law and do what they please

A committee of 9 unelected lawyers with life-tenure, deliberating in secret and issuing unappealable decrees when the mood strikes them, for a nation of 325 million people?

What’s so scary about that??

How else would you decide the ultimate questions about what is legal?

The only alternatives in the entire world are:
1) Dictatorship.
2) Oligarchy - dictatorship by a small group rather than one person
3) Iran - the Guardian Council has powers similar to our Supreme Court, but its members are appointed to 6-year terms by the Supreme Leader (not by the Prime Minister)
4) UK-style parliamentary systems. Parliament is sovereign. The Prime Minister is elected by Parliament, so a Parliamentary majority is all that is required to completely change ANYTHING.

Look at the UK today - they're in the middle of their biggest political decision in 4 decades, and the Prime Minister unilaterally decided to suspend Parliament. Is that legal? Well, it's legal because the Prime Minister says it's legal. But he's not exactly a neutral 3rd party referee.

Fair question

Right now we have 9 unelected monarchs

If they are going to act like psuedo politicians than they need to be treated as such. The last thing we need is more nationalized elections so popular vote for SC justices is out.

Right off the bat I would give them terms limits of 12 years and have 3 replaced every election. After every presidential election, the House would get to appoint 1 judge, the Senate would get to appoint 1 judge, and the President would get to appoint 1 judge.

An alternative would be to have 13 SC justices with each of the 12 circuits serving as a district whose population gets to elect a Justice to a 12 year term. 4 Justices would be up for election every 3 years.. The president would get to appoint the 13th judge and that would be the Chief Justice who gets a 20 year term.

Judges shouldn't have to run election campaigns.

If judges have to campaign, then the winners are the best politicians, not the best jurists.

I'd be ok with a term limit for judges. I'd say each Presidential election gets to appoint 2 justices to 20 year terms, for 10 justices. Sure, there will be ties, but that's an advantage. It means nothing gets overturned by only 1 vote.

The reason for 10 justices is because that way no president ever appoints half the court.

judges should never have tenure upon appointment....I've never understood the concept unless one knows it can 'gin' the system...

and bs to the latter....what if 6 croaked or retired in 1 year AND the other branches were all controlled by donks or 'phants...

while highly unlikely, it's still plausible....

there's a reason the dippos want to increase the number on the bench....

when one doesn't have an out, 'ginning' the numbers is a no-brainer to maintain control power...

(09-15-2019 06:44 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-13-2019 07:40 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-13-2019 11:32 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 01:41 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 12:53 PM)solohawks Wrote:  incredibly scary that 9 unelected officials have taken it upon themselves to ignore the law and do what they please

A committee of 9 unelected lawyers with life-tenure, deliberating in secret and issuing unappealable decrees when the mood strikes them, for a nation of 325 million people?

What’s so scary about that??

How else would you decide the ultimate questions about what is legal?

The only alternatives in the entire world are:
1) Dictatorship.
2) Oligarchy - dictatorship by a small group rather than one person
3) Iran - the Guardian Council has powers similar to our Supreme Court, but its members are appointed to 6-year terms by the Supreme Leader (not by the Prime Minister)
4) UK-style parliamentary systems. Parliament is sovereign. The Prime Minister is elected by Parliament, so a Parliamentary majority is all that is required to completely change ANYTHING.

Look at the UK today - they're in the middle of their biggest political decision in 4 decades, and the Prime Minister unilaterally decided to suspend Parliament. Is that legal? Well, it's legal because the Prime Minister says it's legal. But he's not exactly a neutral 3rd party referee.

Fair question

Right now we have 9 unelected monarchs

If they are going to act like psuedo politicians than they need to be treated as such. The last thing we need is more nationalized elections so popular vote for SC justices is out.

Right off the bat I would give them terms limits of 12 years and have 3 replaced every election. After every presidential election, the House would get to appoint 1 judge, the Senate would get to appoint 1 judge, and the President would get to appoint 1 judge.

An alternative would be to have 13 SC justices with each of the 12 circuits serving as a district whose population gets to elect a Justice to a 12 year term. 4 Justices would be up for election every 3 years.. The president would get to appoint the 13th judge and that would be the Chief Justice who gets a 20 year term.

Judges shouldn't have to run election campaigns.

If judges have to campaign, then the winners are the best politicians, not the best jurists.

I'd be ok with a term limit for judges. I'd say each Presidential election gets to appoint 2 justices to 20 year terms, for 10 justices. Sure, there will be ties, but that's an advantage. It means nothing gets overturned by only 1 vote.

The reason for 10 justices is because that way no president ever appoints half the court.

We elect judges in NC so i guess im used to it.

An even number Supreme court would be interesting. Perhaps our system needs ties

(09-15-2019 04:08 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  "https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/trump-defends-brett-kavanaugh-after-sexual-misconduct-allegations-resurface-n1054581"

Isn't it amazing that Orangeman knows everything that did or didn't happen at every party BK ever attended?

This is hilarious! When will you learn not to trust anything the MSM tells you? How long did this scandal last before being proven wrong? 36 hours?