• 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

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,903
Reaction score
60,356
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Chief justice urges progress naming judges - Yahoo! News

AP today 4 am-Republicans and Democrats must find a long-term solution to selecting federal judges, Chief Justice John Roberts says, while blaming both sides for the political gridlock of judicial nominations in the Senate.

"Each political party has found it easy to turn on a dime from decrying to defending the blocking of judicial nominations, depending on their changing political fortunes," Roberts said Friday in his year-end report. "This has created acute difficulties for some judicial districts. Sitting judges in those districts have been burdened with extraordinary caseloads."

I don't agree with Roberts often, but when he is right, he is right. This is not a republican or democrat issue. Both do it. It is also a fairly important issue. We need to get enough judges out there as people do have a right to timely justice. We have to stop playing petty politics with every god damned thing and start working to do what is right. This is true for republicans and democrats alike.
 
I don't agree with Roberts often, but when he is right, he is right. This is not a republican or democrat issue. Both do it. It is also a fairly important issue. We need to get enough judges out there as people do have a right to timely justice. We have to stop playing petty politics with every god damned thing and start working to do what is right. This is true for republicans and democrats alike.

I don't have anything to add, I'm just quoting this because it bears repeating.
 
The problem was created by the courts. Politically motivated interpretations of the law and the constitution have led to the politicization of the judicial branch. Until judges start strictly interpreting the law as it was written, this will and should continue.
 
How about we pass a referendum that states that no legislator will receive a paycheck from their government salary as long as a judicial post goes unseated? That way, they'll have to decide what's more important - appointing judges or getting paid.
 
Chief justice urges progress naming judges - Yahoo! News



I don't agree with Roberts often, but when he is right, he is right. This is not a republican or democrat issue. Both do it. It is also a fairly important issue. We need to get enough judges out there as people do have a right to timely justice. We have to stop playing petty politics with every god damned thing and start working to do what is right. This is true for republicans and democrats alike.

Those Republicans who vote to confirm any Obama judicial nominations must figuratively die a political death. Cooperation means death.
 
The problem was created by the courts. Politically motivated interpretations of the law and the constitution have led to the politicization of the judicial branch. Until judges start strictly interpreting the law as it was written, this will and should continue.

Actually, I rather prefer the courts to maintain the power of judicial review.
 
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.
 
/us_supreme_court_year_end]Chief justice urges progress naming judges - Yahoo! News

I don't agree with Roberts often, but when he is right, he is right. This is not a republican or democrat issue. Both do it. It is also a fairly important issue. We need to get enough judges out there as people do have a right to timely justice. We have to stop playing petty politics with every god damned thing and start working to do what is right. This is true for republicans and democrats alike.

Kind of busy right now. I'll get back to you, Congress.

ricksfolly
 
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.

The president has earned the right to pick who he chooses. The only reason to my mind to stop such a pick is that they are somehow actually unqualified, not because they might rule in a way they don't like. This is true even if it's a republican president.
 
The president has earned the right to pick who he chooses. The only reason to my mind to stop such a pick is that they are somehow actually unqualified, not because they might rule in a way they don't like. This is true even if it's a republican president.

Do you remember Miguel Estrada? What happened to his judicial nomination? What goes around comes around.
 
Actually, I rather prefer the courts to maintain the power of judicial review.

And I think it’s often better to have no judicial review than to have one that subverts the constitution. If they didn’t rely so much on precedent I’d be more likely to agree with you.

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.

I agree that we have to stop the source of it but I don’t think we can ever reasonably expect politicians to stop partisan appointing so long as there are so many partisan judges out there. The real solution is to start impeaching some judges and maybe write some laws that force the judicial system to interpret the law as it is written.
 
Albert keep putting on his scary Halloween costume and telling us that this nation is going to hell on a roller coaster.

Why are some here trying to grease the tracks? Including Albert.
 
The problem was created by the courts. Politically motivated interpretations of the law and the constitution have led to the politicization of the judicial branch. Until judges start strictly interpreting the law as it was written, this will and should continue.
Well said. This is why there should be republican judges trying to block democrat judges and democrat judges trying to block republican judges.
 
Albert keep putting on his scary Halloween costume and telling us that this nation is going to hell on a roller coaster.

Why are some here trying to grease the tracks? Including Albert.

Happy New Year my friend.
 
And I think it’s often better to have no judicial review than to have one that subverts the constitution. If they didn’t rely so much on precedent I’d be more likely to agree with you.

So you'd rather have legislators be able to write laws that subvert the Constitution than give judges the power to maintain the Constitution. Okay then.
 
Well said. This is why there should be republican judges trying to block democrat judges and democrat judges trying to block republican judges.

1) It's republican politicians blocking democratic judges and democratic politicians blocking republican judges.

2) If we block republican and democrat judges, then there pretty much is no one left.
 
Do you remember Miguel Estrada? What happened to his judicial nomination? What goes around comes around.

If that was the case, it would be your court case that is held up due to lack of judges.
 
The problem was created by the courts. Politically motivated interpretations of the law and the constitution have led to the politicization of the judicial branch. Until judges start strictly interpreting the law as it was written, this will and should continue.

I complete agree with you. If a judge does not like the way a law is written, then let him resign from the bench and run for Congress. The courts are there to interpret the law, not create it through interpretations containing "artistic license".
 
So you'd rather have legislators be able to write laws that subvert the Constitution than give judges the power to maintain the Constitution. Okay then.

No, I’d rather have legislators be able to write laws that subvert the Constitution while judges maintain the constitution than have legislators write constitutional laws while judges subvert it.
 
No, I’d rather have legislators be able to write laws that subvert the Constitution while judges maintain the constitution than have legislators write constitutional laws while judges subvert it.

That doesn't seem to be any much better at all.
 
I complete agree with you. If a judge does not like the way a law is written, then let him resign from the bench and run for Congress. The courts are there to interpret the law, not create it through interpretations containing "artistic license".

But some laws contradict higher law, and it is up for judges to determine that as well.
 
That doesn't seem to be any much better at all.

It is actually. You see, it doesn’t matter as much if congress writes laws that aren’t constitutional so long as the judicial branch is doing its job because the courts will kick them back to congress and tell them to fix it. That’s how the system was designed to work.

If judges continue to subvert the constitution, it doesn’t matter whether the laws written by congress are constitutional or not, the constitution is being subverted. My answer is for congress to use its constitutional powers of impeachment to put the judiciary back in check.
See how that works?
 
But some laws contradict higher law, and it is up for judges to determine that as well.

That is true, but show me where in the Constitution where the issues of abortion and gay rights are given to the Federal government to determine. You won't find it. What you will find, though, is the 10th Amendment, which states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 
Back
Top Bottom