Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-26-2012, 07:09 AM   #1
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
The single biggest issue in the coming Presidential election

food for thought.........

–The single biggest issue in the coming Presidential election
QuoteQuote:
Contrary to the hopes of the Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court is the most politically extreme of the three government branches. The other two, the Legislative and the Executive, are forced to be less politically extreme, because their members repeatedly must answer to an electorate that tends nearer to the middle. But the Supreme Court answers to no one.


10-26-2012, 07:29 AM   #2
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,056
Sadly, this is why a Romney/Ryan victory will be a gift that keeps on giving...
10-26-2012, 09:15 AM   #3
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Southern California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,082
Yeah, I don't understand why they needed lifetime appointments. Why couldn't they be elected or have a 10-15 year, single term, appointment? I would support such an amendment. Sometimes you get a Thurgood Marshall, and sometimes you get a, mistake, like Clarence Thomas. I think losing an experienced Judge, like Marshall, too soon might be worth it so we don't end up keeping crooked creeps like Thomas.
10-26-2012, 10:35 AM   #4
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,056
Elections are no good as the court ideally is independent of current politics. So there's no re-elecction pandering.

But term limits with a rotation could work - I've seen some proposals to that end. The thing is there would have to be a pre-set schedule where the nominations line up equally across 4 year presidential terms... which has its own potential issues. Do we really need an effectively brand new court every 12 years, and 3 new justices every 4?

10-26-2012, 10:48 AM   #5
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by kenafein Quote
Yeah, I don't understand why they needed lifetime appointments. Why couldn't they be elected or have a 10-15 year, single term, appointment? I would support such an amendment. Sometimes you get a Thurgood Marshall, and sometimes you get a, mistake, like Clarence Thomas. I think losing an experienced Judge, like Marshall, too soon might be worth it so we don't end up keeping crooked creeps like Thomas.
Founding fathers assumed we would be rational and only pick the finest minds.. not ideologues... silly weren't they............
10-26-2012, 10:50 AM   #6
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Southern California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,082
QuoteOriginally posted by Nesster Quote
Elections are no good as the court ideally is independent of current politics. So there's no re-elecction pandering.

But term limits with a rotation could work - I've seen some proposals to that end. The thing is there would have to be a pre-set schedule where the nominations line up equally across 4 year presidential terms... which has its own potential issues. Do we really need an effectively brand new court every 12 years, and 3 new justices every 4?
I don't think they should be able to be re-elected. They should have a single term limit. A single judge's terms could expire every 2 years, with a 14 year appointment per judge. The President could appoint 2 judges per term. Or we can elect them, by popular vote, for a single term.
10-26-2012, 10:54 AM   #7
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,829
QuoteOriginally posted by kenafein Quote
I don't think they should be able to be re-elected. They should have a single term limit. A single judge's terms could expire every 2 years, with a 14 year appointment per judge.
Except for the term limit, that is essentially the way the chairman of the Federal Reserve is chosen.
10-26-2012, 10:55 AM   #8
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Syracuse, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,277
Any changes to the Supreme Court would require a Constitutional Amendment. That isn't ever going to happen again. I doubt we could ever get two thirds of the country to agree on what color the sky is.

10-26-2012, 11:02 AM   #9
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,510
This issue comes up often and there is a problem with it. Supreme Court Justices have a mind of their own and often decide issues in a way that upsets the conservatives or liberals that appointed or supported them as Justice Roberts just proved on the health care case. Far too often, the Supreme Court is filling the gap that Congress leaves open because they can't or won't deal with an issue. They pass the buck and then bitch about a decision to rack up brownie points with the voters. Justices themselves have commented that they didn't particularly like a decision they made but the law as written required it and have called on Congress to change it they didn't like it.
10-26-2012, 12:11 PM - 1 Like   #10
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by reeftool Quote
This issue comes up often and there is a problem with it. Supreme Court Justices have a mind of their own and often decide issues in a way that upsets the conservatives or liberals that appointed or supported them as Justice Roberts just proved on the health care case. Far too often, the Supreme Court is filling the gap that Congress leaves open because they can't or won't deal with an issue. They pass the buck and then bitch about a decision to rack up brownie points with the voters. Justices themselves have commented that they didn't particularly like a decision they made but the law as written required it and have called on Congress to change it they didn't like it.
Like Scalia completely throwing out the Constitution because he found it "embarrassing" that we couldn't immediately declare a new president.. with the rule of law OR "principal" e getting in the way.......

QuoteQuote:
Five Supreme Court justices elect Bush. Five Supreme Court justices, led by Anatoly Scalia, handed the presidency to George W. Bush on December 13, 2000. The five conservatives had always been the defenders of states’ rights against federal intrusions. In this one and only case, they sold out their states’ rights philosophy. They stopped the recount, the court, publicly divided 5 to 4 even before oral argument, proved they were determined on putting Bush in the White House.

There were two blatant conflicts of interest. First, Virginia Lamp Thomas, the wife of Justice Thomas, said that she was working at a conservative research group gathering resumés for appointments in a Bush administration. She claimed in a New York Times article (December 12, 2000) that she saw no conflict between her job and her husband’s deliberations on a case that could decide the presidency. She worked at the conservative Heritage Foundation which had close ties to the Republican Party and presumably was influential in the hiring of key government officials in the Bush administration. In e-mail distributed on Capitol Hill in early December, Mrs. Thomas solicited resumés “for transition purposes” from the government oversight committees of Congress. Nevertheless, Justice Thomas refused to recuse himself.

Second, two sons of Justice Scalia worked for law firms involved with Bush’s legal team. One son, Eugene Scalia, was a partner in the Washington office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. Another partner, Theodore Olson, argued Bush’s case before the Supreme Court. The young Scalia served as Special Assistant to Attorney General of the United States William Barr. The other son, John Scalia, accepted a position with the Miami-based firm Greenberg Traurig on November 7. The next day, Barry Richard, a partner in the firm, said he was called about representing Bush in Florida.
Retgardles of who would or wouldn't have won... his decision is generally accepted to violate his own principals .. for whatever reason.. supporting Bush or just supporting no "inconvience" in an election.. A tragedy no matter how you look at it...........
10-27-2012, 04:25 AM   #11
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,475
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
But the Supreme Court answers to no one.

Perhaps the writers of the constitution assumed, at a time when only the most educated and socially prominent could and would participate in politics, that the Supreme's would be constrained and answerable to the Constitution it's self?

I know that as a Modern man reading the Constitution I often find parts of it very idealistic and excessively out of touch with modern realities.

The Constitution was written by 18th century men for 18th century men not by the Gods - many on the Right seem to forget this.

Last edited by wildman; 10-27-2012 at 04:32 AM.
10-27-2012, 04:37 AM   #12
Banned




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Charleston & Pittsburgh
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,668
QuoteOriginally posted by wildman Quote
I know that as a Modern man reading the Constitution I often find parts of it very idealistic and excessively out of touch with modern realities
Could not agree more.

Also of interest; is that any person happening to be actively serving their country; whether active duty or reserves - is also somewhat immune from the rules of the constitution, but in a way that places far more regulation upon the individual soldier.

It's interesting that a person that could be "asked" to place their lives in danger (or even sacrife their lives entirely) for their country and flag - is then bound by a much stricted set of regulations than they are afforded by the constitution. I have many case in point, but here are just a few examples.

In the military (in general) there is very little freedom of speech and/or right to protest. It is not all that difficult to get into rather severe implications of what is called the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Bend those rules just a bit too far and then one subject themselves to immediate Article 15 - which can (and does) result in about one half loss of pay and loss of cetain other priveledges. It's also not too far of the bat to even face a first time punishment so extreme that it might warrant immediate discharge.

-And under some instances - discharge from the military can indeed follow into ones civilian life. There's more than one level of discharge that would then prohibit any "now civilian, earlier discharged" person from even voting or ever even owning a firearm - under most circumstances.


I personally would not mind seeing the entire justice system rewritten and reapplied. In my perspective it would be a lot more strict and enforced to the letter. But then again, I'm the same person that wouldn't mind having a majority of the people out there that are lifelong social program leeches (not to be confused with the people whom actually need it genuinely) - that those same people be offered lifelong transference to places such as far rural Alaska
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
court, election, issue, supreme
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
If the US Presidential Election depended on your stomachs, who would win? Reportage General Talk 4 09-27-2012 03:09 AM
BBC: Egypt starts presidential election run-off jolepp General Talk 5 07-01-2012 03:45 AM
Is it (the election) really coming to this? Nesster General Talk 5 06-05-2012 05:20 PM
Finnish presidential election jolepp General Talk 24 02-09-2012 04:54 AM
Democrat wins House election on Medicare issue jogiba General Talk 18 05-26-2011 06:11 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:27 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top