• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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. ;)

What I really like about your suggestions are that they allow for regular people, non politicians, to get involved in the inner workings of DC... and they'll have no interest in preserving a career or playing politics. It's all well meaning. For that reason I really like it.. but it seems like it might be costly. I think other people would argue, what about their qualifications (the jurors) how do we know we can trust them?

I know there would be pre jury selections, but it still begs the question; what type of background and education are sufficient enough? It seems like that could turn into a political fight...
 
Last edited:
What I really like about your suggestions are that they allow for regular people, non politicians, to get involved in the inner workings of DC... and they'll have no interest in preserving a career or playing politics. It's all well meaning. For that reason I really like it.. but it seems like it might be costly. I think other people would argue, what about their qualifications (the jurors) how do we know we can trust them?

I know there would be pre jury selections, but it still begs the question; what type of background and education are sufficient enough? It seems like that could turn into a political fight...

In all honesty I personally don't care about monetary cost when it comes to appointing judges that are suppose to hold the rest of our government in check from taking away our rights. But I do see your point and really don't have an answer for it as there are those that would care. I guess we could put a limit on how much is spent based on certain minimal requirements.

As far as the background and education goes I would argue that it be the same as that allowed for regular jurors. That is why I put in the provision that a top notch lawyer be appointed to them in order to answer any questions that they may have. It would help allieviate(sp?) the problem of stupid or ignorant jurors. Might not solve it, but it should help. Perhaps we could also appoint a constitutional historian to help even further? I would of course want them to only answer questions and never give their opinions so as to keep the jury "pure" for lack of a better term atm.
 
In all honesty I personally don't care about monetary cost when it comes to appointing judges that are suppose to hold the rest of our government in check from taking away our rights. But I do see your point and really don't have an answer for it as there are those that would care. I guess we could put a limit on how much is spent based on certain minimal requirements.

As far as the background and education goes I would argue that it be the same as that allowed for regular jurors. That is why I put in the provision that a top notch lawyer be appointed to them in order to answer any questions that they may have. It would help allieviate(sp?) the problem of stupid or ignorant jurors. Might not solve it, but it should help. Perhaps we could also appoint a constitutional historian to help even further? I would of course want them to only answer questions and never give their opinions so as to keep the jury "pure" for lack of a better term atm.

Anything that will get the regular folks involved in the inner workings of DC and be active in it... is a good idea IMO :mrgreen:

I also agree that sometimes it's worth it to pay more.
 
I believe you two are wrong for focusing on the 9th and 10th amendments. For example, the "right to privacy" was found to be a form of substantive due process. It is part of the 14th amendment. This is also true when applying any form of the bill of rights to states.

wrong-You are confused -i was focusing on those two because I was replying to Samsmart who mentioned those two
 
SCOTUS Judges are not answerable to the American people either. When they are put into their position they are there for life except on two conditions. They retire. They are "impeached", and when was the last time a judge was impeached?

The people who put them in business are answerable to the American people. They're the same people who decide whether, or not, to impeach a justice.

That's why judicial appointments should remain the job of our elected congress and not an appointed panel.
 
ahhh... you said "results from Amendments", yeah, that was pretty clear, my bad.

I take it that you think that freedom of speech applies only to speech then, and not expression? That one could yell "bomb under my seat" in a darkened movie theatre too? It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech".

So, making a law against hate speech is unConstitutional, right?

Yes, making a law that prohibits hate speech would be unconstitutional, provided of course that it is not an incitement to immediate violence. In other words, walking up to a group of black people and calling them all the N-word with clinched fists in the air would be akin to yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theater.
 
Yes, making a law that prohibits hate speech would be unconstitutional, provided of course that it is not an incitement to immediate violence. In other words, walking up to a group of black people and calling them all the N-word with clinched fists in the air would be akin to yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theater.

Does the Constitution distinguish between intent of words though? It just says that congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. There aren't any provisions that I am aware of. Are there provisions? We can either say whatever we want, whenever we want... or we can't.

My point is, that if congress or laws say that we can't say whatever we want, whenever we want and it is passed and considered Constitutional, then we have an evolving document. If it is UnConstitutional, then you are advocating that a person could run around screaming that all niggers should leave the country or that ol' fire in a crowded theatre adage would be fine... right?
 
The people who put them in business are answerable to the American people. They're the same people who decide whether, or not, to impeach a justice.

That's why judicial appointments should remain the job of our elected congress and not an appointed panel.

And look at the trouble we're having with that system. What was this thread about again?

Simple fact of the matter is that if there is a problem then it needs to be fixed. I gave a couple of suggestions. Have you got any ideas? Because you're not going to change how politicians think and act.
 
And look at the trouble we're having with that system. What was this thread about again?

Simple fact of the matter is that if there is a problem then it needs to be fixed. I gave a couple of suggestions. Have you got any ideas? Because you're not going to change how politicians think and act.

What's the problem? We're quite a few judges short?

The problem could be a significant over abundance of nutjob, fring judges, legislating from the bench.

The current system, while not perfect, will not and should not be changed. If we do things your way, there will be no checks and balances within the judicial branch. That would be a problem.
 
Does the Constitution distinguish between intent of words though? It just says that congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. There aren't any provisions that I am aware of. Are there provisions? We can either say whatever we want, whenever we want... or we can't.

My point is, that if congress or laws say that we can't say whatever we want, whenever we want and it is passed and considered Constitutional, then we have an evolving document. If it is UnConstitutional, then you are advocating that a person could run around screaming that all niggers should leave the country or that ol' fire in a crowded theatre adage would be fine... right?

You asked a litany of great questions. Unfortunately we are veering off topic enough to give me pause. I don’t hold much favor with the powers that be around these parts and there were already a couple bans a few pages back so consider this a mulligan.

Perhaps I can best sum up an answer to all of your questions without getting off topic by saying that I’m a textualist first, an originalist second with a heavy dose of constructionist thrown in to round things off. I obviously frown on ex post facto interpretations too.
 
What's the problem? We're quite a few judges short?

The problem could be a significant over abundance of nutjob, fring judges, legislating from the bench.

The current system, while not perfect, will not and should not be changed. If we do things your way, there will be no checks and balances within the judicial branch. That would be a problem.

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?

The problem that this thread has identified is that it takes the Senate so freaking long to appoint judges due to partisanship. The D's try to stop or stall the R's choices and the R's do the same to the D's. They do this to try and get a judge that is sympathetic to their cause on the bench so that there is a less likely chance that if a law they pass gets brought before the Court that it will get struck down. I would argue that by doing this they are subverting the very purpose that SCOTUS was made for. And that is to keep the Legislative and Executive branches from screwing over the people. My solution would solve that and still keep the essential check and balance in place.

btw, what did you think of the other suggestion that I had?
 
Last edited:
The only way to fix the problem is to stop the source of it. The reason there is partisan fighting is because there is partisan appointing. Democrats and Republicans both appoint judges they believe will be in favor of their agendas and will be hold similar legal philosophies when it comes to rulings. They don't appoint judges based on merit or non-biased review and rulings of the law, they appoint them based on party allegiance and partisan gain. This needs to stop first.

Look back to how the Dems treated Robert Bork...
 
What you don't get is that the right should approve or not approve nominees based on their qualifications, not on whether or not Obama didn't vote for Bush's nominees.

Problem with the left on such matters is that it is always "do as I say, not as I do." Do you think for one minute that the left won't return to their delaying, blocking tactics if there were a Republican president in 2013 should the Republicans step aside and do what Obama himself as Senator wouldn't do? These tactics from the Dems date back to the 1980s...
 
"Legislating from the bench" is simply a code phrase for "ruling I don't like". It has pretty much zero meaning.

No it doesn't. It means that the judicial branch should rely strictly on the Constitution and NOT on things like what other societies do or what they think should be the right thing to do...
 
That's a problem since different folks view what the Constitution say differently. Terms need to be redefined based on modern times. If not, the entire Constitution should be scrapped and rewritten every 50 years or so.

See bold -- there is a provision for that in the Constitution
see unbolded -- there is NOT a provision for that in the Constitution...
 
I believe you two are wrong for focusing on the 9th and 10th amendments. For example, the "right to privacy" was found to be a form of substantive due process. It is part of the 14th amendment. This is also true when applying any form of the bill of rights to states.

But the 14th Amendment doesn't specifically list a "right to privacy." However, the right to privacy can be extrapolated from the 14th because of the 9th.
 
The problem could be a significant over abundance of nutjob, fring judges, legislating from the bench.

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.
 
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?

The problem that this thread has identified is that it takes the Senate so freaking long to appoint judges due to partisanship. The D's try to stop or stall the R's choices and the R's do the same to the D's. They do this to try and get a judge that is sympathetic to their cause on the bench so that there is a less likely chance that if a law they pass gets brought before the Court that it will get struck down. I would argue that by doing this they are subverting the very purpose that SCOTUS was made for. And that is to keep the Legislative and Executive branches from screwing over the people. My solution would solve that and still keep the essential check and balance in place.

btw, what did you think of the other suggestion that I had?

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.
 
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???
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom