Page 12 of 19 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 190

Thread: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

  1. #111
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:43 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,272
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    Only through amendments. The only legal evolution of the constitution that has occured has been through the amendment process.
    This would be false, as any number of rulings by SCOTUS and lower courts show.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  2. #112
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:43 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,272
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    Roe v wade comes to mind
    So the problem is that activist judges are ones that you disagree with. Thank you for proving my point.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  3. #113
    Dungeon Master
    anti socialist

    X Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Texas Proud
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:24 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    44,721

    Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    So the problem is that activist judges are ones that you disagree with. Thank you for proving my point.
    Redress, what if a conservative judge ruled that legislation permitting same sex marriages was unconstitutional and used some contorted logic to justify it? The reason you don't understand the objection is that virtually all judicial activism benefits your political lean.
    The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.
    Mahatma Gandhi


  4. #114
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:43 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,272
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    Redress, what if a conservative judge ruled that legislation permitting same sex marriages was unconstitutional and used some contorted logic to justify it? The reason you don't understand the objection is that virtually all judicial activism benefits your political lean.
    The problem still is that people only use activist judge and legislating from the bench claims for rulings that don't fit their personal ideology. The problem is not with the judges but with the people making the claim. That is the reality of the situation, not some made up thing.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  5. #115
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    I guess I think it is more important to restore confidence than to see appointments simply accomplished... No matter who we can blame. I'd like to see a self regulating system that increases more people's confidence that judges are interpreting the law with less partisanship. The founders envisioned a weaker, non-partisan executive and failed in both aims. We should adjust the system according to the reality, while not exacerbating the current problems.
    Errr, no.

    It's not that I want to see appointment simply accomplished - I, too, want worthwhile members to get appointed to the judiciary. However, the major reason why judgeships go unfilled is because there's no consequence to the Senate for not filling appointments. This means that the judiciary itself suffers, and Congress doesn't care because it doesn't affect them, and they profit to their partisan base by being hard-liners on every judicial appointment.

    So we give the Senate the chance to make appointments. If they perpetuate their partisan hackery for their own benefit and refuse to compromise on a position then it goes to the President to fill.

    It gives the Senate full control over appointments, and only over to the President if they cannot come up with a consensus. That's not outside the line of political thinking, as the reason why the President is both head-of-government and head-of-state is so that the President can take charge during issues in which Congress is at loggerheads. It's also within the realms of checks and balances.

    This also takes into account practical realities. For one, no matter which judges get appointed, somebody will object to them. So there's no real way to build up the people's confidence in the judiciary as, no matter what position they hold, their rulings will piss somebody off.

    Therefore, I say we just give the Senate a chance to make those appointments, and if they become unable to then it goes to the President.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  6. #116
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    Redress, what if a conservative judge ruled that legislation permitting same sex marriages was unconstitutional and used some contorted logic to justify it? The reason you don't understand the objection is that virtually all judicial activism benefits your political lean.
    No. All judges are activists to the other side, whether they like it or not, whether the people like it or not.

    And if a conservative judge ruled against legislation permitting same sex marriages, then leftists would do the same thing rightists would do - campaign on it.

    That's the way it's always been, that's the way it is, and that's the way it will always be.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  7. #117
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,720

    Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    Well, I'm not going to get into which acts of who violated it - I'm just stating that the Supreme Court, and other courts, has the power of judicial review to ensure that Congress does not violate the Ninth Amendment as they interpret it.
    You argue the ninth amendment by taking it out of context. The ninth amendment was about limiting the power of the Federal government. The intent of the ninth amendment was NOT to have the Federal government gain power by inserting itself into arguments regarding powers that are not specifially enumerated by the Constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison
    It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.
    In actuality, the ninth and tenth amendments go together, in limiting the power of the Federal government, which was the intent of the framers of the Constitution. Madison himself was directly responsible for the inclusion of the ninth amendment into the Constitution, and again, it was based on limiting the power of the Federal government, not expanding it, as you claim.

    In practice, SCOTUS has the power to strike down any law that violates the constitution (judicial review), but does not have the power to strike down ANY law which does not explicitly violate the Constitution. Thus, other non-enumerated rights are reserved for the states and the people, and the Federal government has no power to regulate them.

    Also, judical review has absolutely nothing to do with the ninth amendment, but everything to do with the Marbury v. Madison decision in 1803, in which the Supreme Court struck down part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 as unconstitutional, thus providing a judicial foundation for the practice. The decision was so controversial at the time that SCOTUS did not engage in judicial review again until the Dred Scott decision in 1856.
    Last edited by danarhea; 01-02-11 at 07:04 AM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  8. #118
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

    The problem is simple. One side, the left sees the Constitution as a living breathing document that can change with the times through the courts, and appoints judges that tend to view it this way. The right sees the Constitution as alterable only through amendments and should be read as written and chooses judges that tend that way.

    The two views are NOT compatible. There has ALWAYS been clashing over this.

    I think the first, and most well known case of these two views clashing in a nasty, public way was the nomination and subsequent "Borking" or Robert Bork. It's gone down hill really, since then.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  9. #119
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

    I have a solution to the tit for tat mentality that our legislators have when appointing judges. Take that ability away from them.

    In our justice system every defendent can be judged by their peers. aka Jury. If this is good enough to convict someone for rape and murder where they can get the death penalty then it should be good enough to nominate judges to the Supreme Courts. And with today's technology it would be a simple matter to make it a jury pooled nationally so as to attempt to avoid partisanship.

    1: Randomly select jury pool. (to make sure they have at least some intelligence we could make the selection process based off of high school diplomas instead of drivers license like most places) 1 jury panel per judge.

    2: Those that were selected must report to a specific local to deliberate with the rest of the selected Jury members. All of their expenses will be paid for while they are deliberating, transportation shall be provided via private government jet/car. They will be paid based on their current salary at their current job so as to not lose anything so that their bills can be paid. Just like a regular jury the place that they work for cannot fire them.

    3: During deliberations the prospective judge will be made available to answer questions posed by the jurors.

    4: All of the Judges education history and case files must be made available to the Jurors. Any and all opinions that the Judge wrote or said in public on specific case files must also be made available.

    5: Jurors will be allowed to contact family members during this time but no one else.

    6: No one except emergency personel and assigned security detail may get within 100 feet or call a jury member from the moment that said jury member is selected.

    7: Jurors have a maximum of 6 months to decide if the judge they were reviewing is acceptable or not. If no decision can be made then judge is automatically rejected and the jurors must pay back all that was paid out due to any and all expenses incurred by jurors. This is to prevent people from taking advantage of the system. The amount jurors must pay back can be adjusted or nulled based on unavoidable circumstances, a regular court can decide this on a case by case basis.

    8: When judging whether a judge should be allowed or not the decision must come from a unanimous decision, less one.

    9: Each jury panel will be assigned a security detail (at least 2 security people per juror). The panel will also be assigned a lawyer from the highest rated university and law firm in the country. IE the lawyer must be from both. If that is not possible then the lawyer must be from the highest rated university and second highest rated law firm in the country or visa versa. On down the line if needed.

    Please note that this is just a SUGESTION. I won't care if it gets clipped or improved on or totally thrown out. But if it is thrown out then perhaps you could also take the time to present your own idea instead of just being negative to an idea that was put out? I also thought up a couple more possible ideas while I was writing this one. So its not like there are not possibilites out there.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  10. #120
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

    Another suggestion...and probably simpler...maybe even better?

    A panel made up of contitutional historians and lawyers decide. Set up rules that they must follow at all times. Make sure there are punishments for taking any bribes and or gifts from lobbiests and politicians. They get audited every 6-12 months to make sure that they are not taking bribes/gifts.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

Page 12 of 19 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •