Page 18 of 19 FirstFirst ... 816171819 LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 190

Thread: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

  1. #171
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,402

    Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    Or the problem could be centrist judges making moderate decisions get accused of legislating from the bench from a significant abundance of nutjob fringe hardliners.
    How many of those, "moderate", judges voted in favor of your agenda???
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  2. #172
    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 Kal'Stang View Post
    What exactly are the checks and balances on SCOTUS? The only real one that there is is impeachment. And I see no reason that cannot be kept with in the Senates control. You do know that I am just talking strictly about appointments right?
    Many.

    1) The President nominates the Justices - the President decides who shall be considered for the appointment of Justices

    2) The Senate confirms the nominee - an appointment is made only with the approval of a chamber of Congress.

    3) It is up to the President to enforce Supreme Court rulings - if the President does not approve of a Supreme Court ruling, he can choose not to enforce [done somewhat (in)famously by Andrew Jackson regarding the Native Americans suing against the government relocating them to reservations)

    4) An amendment can be proposed by 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate, or be proposed by 2/3 of the state legislatures; the amendment can then be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures, or 3/4 of the states via conventions - if the Supreme Court rules an act unconstitutional, Congress or the people can amendment the Constitution to allow it

    So there are many ways in which to check the power of the Supreme Court.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  3. #173
    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 apdst View Post
    How many of those, "moderate", judges voted in favor of your agenda???
    Just as many as those who voted against, or in favor of yours.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  4. #174
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    No. SCOTUS doesn't have the power to grant or not grant rights. Rather, they have the power to clarify rights since the Constitution admits it does not exhaustively list all rights people have.

    Well, some on the courts believe we should be looking to foreign law to determine our rights under the constitution...You agree with that?


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  5. #175
    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 j-mac View Post
    Well, some on the courts believe we should be looking to foreign law to determine our rights under the constitution...You agree with that?
    I don't think that we should dismiss an idea or legal ruling just because the rationale for that interpretation came from a foreign country. However, neither do I think that we should accept an idea or legal ruling just because the rationale for that interpretation came from a foreign country.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  6. #176
    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
    32,858
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The checks and balances in this case, is the selection process. It keeps dickweeds from getting posted to the Supreme Court and doing too much damage, before that person can be impeached.
    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    Many.

    1) The President nominates the Justices - the President decides who shall be considered for the appointment of Justices

    2) The Senate confirms the nominee - an appointment is made only with the approval of a chamber of Congress.

    3) It is up to the President to enforce Supreme Court rulings - if the President does not approve of a Supreme Court ruling, he can choose not to enforce [done somewhat (in)famously by Andrew Jackson regarding the Native Americans suing against the government relocating them to reservations)

    4) An amendment can be proposed by 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate, or be proposed by 2/3 of the state legislatures; the amendment can then be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures, or 3/4 of the states via conventions - if the Supreme Court rules an act unconstitutional, Congress or the people can amendment the Constitution to allow it

    So there are many ways in which to check the power of the Supreme Court.
    Well as far as I can tell the only thing that my suggestions would change is that Congress no longer confirm. I don't see that as a bad thing as they have proven that they do so in a biased manner. We need people that can do it in a non-biased manner. Just for clairification the biased manner in this case is putting the judge on the bench to try and further Congresses goals. Instead of putting them on the bench to preserve the American peoples rights.
    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

  7. #177
    Guru
    GPS_Flex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    02-11-17 @ 11:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,719

    Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Well as far as I can tell the only thing that my suggestions would change is that Congress no longer confirm. I don't see that as a bad thing as they have proven that they do so in a biased manner. We need people that can do it in a non-biased manner. Just for clairification the biased manner in this case is putting the judge on the bench to try and further Congresses goals. Instead of putting them on the bench to preserve the American peoples rights.
    I think it would be more disastrous to remove the senate confirmation process than it is to have cases pile up and get backlogged.

    The most reasonable solution is to have the senate refuse to confirm justices who refuse to answer questions about how they would rule on certain issues. I wouldn’t hire someone who refused to answer questions about how they will do their job if/when hired even though I have the power to fire them if I don’t like the way they do it once I hire them.

    SCOTUS justices serve lifetime appointments so there is no excuse for allowing them to deflect relevant questions that give insight into their judicial thought process.

    "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
    John F. Kennedy
    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    It would seem that the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper, to be trotted out when expedient.

  8. #178
    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
    32,858
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    I think it would be more disastrous to remove the senate confirmation process than it is to have cases pile up and get backlogged.
    Why? If it is because the panel isn't elected by the people then ok, what about my other suggestion? That is the people themselves appointing them. Or is there another reason?

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    The most reasonable solution is to have the senate refuse to confirm justices who refuse to answer questions about how they would rule on certain issues. I wouldn’t hire someone who refused to answer questions about how they will do their job if/when hired even though I have the power to fire them if I don’t like the way they do it once I hire them.
    Wow, they actually let a judge not answer? Yeah...thats pretty F-uped.
    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

  9. #179
    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 GPS_Flex View Post
    I think it would be more disastrous to remove the senate confirmation process than it is to have cases pile up and get backlogged.

    The most reasonable solution is to have the senate refuse to confirm justices who refuse to answer questions about how they would rule on certain issues. I wouldn’t hire someone who refused to answer questions about how they will do their job if/when hired even though I have the power to fire them if I don’t like the way they do it once I hire them.

    SCOTUS justices serve lifetime appointments so there is no excuse for allowing them to deflect relevant questions that give insight into their judicial thought process.
    I don't think that's an adequate solution either. After all, different cases on the same issue relies on different nuances of the law. Also, Justices and judges don't just rule on a case because of the issue - they rule on a case also on how the plaintiff and defendant frame an argument. So a Supreme Court ruling is based just as much on how a case is presented as it is based on what issue the case is based on.

    For example, there was one case brought before the Supreme Court. The issue was gun control, and the specific case concerned a law that prohibited firearms being allowed on school property. The lawyer in support of that law attempted to use the Interstate Commerce Clause to defend the prohibition of firearms in public schools. His argument was that allowing firearms in public schools could negatively affect students getting an education, which would affect the students' ability to work and earn money, which affects our nation's commerce, which Congress can regulate via the Interstate Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court struck the law down based on the argument.

    So SCOTUS didn't necessarily say that Congress can't prohibit firearms on school property. Rather, SCOTUS said that Congress can't prohibit firearms on school property by using the Interstate Commerce Clause to justify it. There's a very fine but also very clear difference between those two statements.

    So I think it would be unfair to ask nominees to judicial appointments how they would rule on certain issues when judges rule based on the argument presented to them just as much as they rule based on the issue itself.

    So that's not a clear solution either. For example, take the case I mentioned above - firearms on school property. SCOTUS said that Congress can't use the Interstate Commerce Clause to prohibit firearms on school property, and gun rights activists would support SCOTUS for this. However, if a different lawyer justified it using a different argument and SCOTUS agreed with them, then gun rights activists would talk about how the Justices betrayed their earlier decision, which isn't the case.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  10. #180
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

    bottom line---one side openly embraces an evolving constitution, the other insists on strict interpretation

    come out of your closets, chancellors

Page 18 of 19 FirstFirst ... 816171819 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
  •