View Poll Results: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

Voters
29. You may not vote on this poll
  • Fine as is, lifetime appointments

    19 65.52%
  • Limited terms, one term only

    5 17.24%
  • Limited terms, but allow multiple terms if re-confirmed

    2 6.90%
  • Other

    3 10.34%
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32

Thread: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court? [W:18]

  1. #11
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    The role of the court and ideal of justice is to follow the law and to apply the constitution.
    The role of the U.S. Constitution (and, far more importantly, the ancient English common law that it governs) is to be equitable and fair, regardless of social class. That's what sets it apart from the High and Low Justices that dominated the legal landscape of other medieval societies (France) and culminated in the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars.

    Justice is a universal moral concept. It isn't specific to any particular legal system. Rather, humans devise legal systems which live up to the ideals of justice (or fail).

    The KKK was created by Southern Democrats. You may want to go back to history class.
    Teaching the class, maybe.

    Party =/= Ideology. Republican Party lost interest in progressivism and started appealing to conservatives in order to get the numbers in needed to remain a viable national level party and the Democratic Party went left when blue collar start liberalizing due to Unions. Civil Rights Movement put the boot in the old superstructure.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 07-01-14 at 05:49 PM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  2. #12
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,560
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    Role of the court is to be fair and equitable. That's the ideal of justice.

    Conservatives aren't big on fairness. Hence, the Klu Klux Klan developed to keep blacks from getting involved in politics. Or, dislike of universal health care.
    The Klu Klux Klan were all Democrats. And the Democratic party remains the party of race division.

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --HL Mencken

  3. #13
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    The Klu Klux Klan were all Democrats. And the Democratic party remains the party of race division.
    The Klu Klux Klan were social conservatives. Society was a certain way, and they wanted it to stay that way no matter what criminal acts they had to sink to to make it happen. What party they claimed has no relevance.

    I would be interested in hearing why you think it does.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  4. #14
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,560
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    The role of the U.S. Constitution (and, far more importantly, the ancient English common law that it governs) is to be equitable and fair, regardless of social class. That's what sets it apart from the High and Low Justices that dominated the legal landscape of other medieval societies (France) and culminated in the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars.

    Justice is a universal moral concept. It isn't specific to any particular legal system. Rather, humans devise legal systems which live up to the ideals of justice (or fail).



    Teaching the class, maybe.

    Party =/= Ideology. Republican Party lost interest in progressivism and started appealing to conservatives in order to get the numbers in needed to remain a viable national level party and the Democratic Party went left when blue collar start liberalizing due to Unions. Civil Rights Movement put the boot in the old superstructure.
    Nope, the shift in membership from Democratic to Republican was only about 8%. The racists and segregationists remained with the Democrats for the most part and just started using different means, like co-opting black leaders with tax payer money. LBJ is an excellent example of that.

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --HL Mencken

  5. #15
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,560
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    The Klu Klux Klan were social conservatives. Society was a certain way, and they wanted it to stay that way no matter what criminal acts they had to sink to to make it happen. What party they claimed has no relevance.

    I would be interested in hearing why you think it does.
    Because Democrats are still pretty much the same, promoting racial division.

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --HL Mencken

  6. #16
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    Nope, the shift in membership from Democratic to Republican was only about 8%. The racists and segregationists remained with the Democrats for the most part and just started using different means, like co-opting black leaders with tax payer money. LBJ is an excellent example of that.
    ... I'm going to guess that the 8% comes from the 1960s.

    Conservatives and progressives were changing parties before the 1960s and before Civil Rights started. Since the 1910s or before. Why, would be a pain in the ass to explain.

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    Because Democrats are still pretty much the same, promoting racial division.
    Maybe the issue is more complex than you make it out to be. Maybe you aren't 100% fair or impartial. Maybe I shouldn't trust you.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 07-01-14 at 06:23 PM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  7. #17
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:25 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,325
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    Liberals haven't gotten what they wanted from the court, so now they want new amendments to the Constitution. First an amendment restricting political speech that was actually voted out of Senate Committee, and now this nonsense.
    I wonder how many constitutional amendments conservatives support...

    Hint: it is several, from an anti-anortion amendment, to a flag burning amendment, to anti-SSM to balanced budget.
    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.

  8. #18
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,982

    Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

    Moderator's Warning:
    Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court? [W:18]A poster managed to threadjack this thread with non-topical bait.

    It ends now.

    Get on topic. And if anyone, specifically the original baiter, doens't adhere to this then expect points and/or a thread ban to be inbound

  9. #19
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

    The reason why people think reforms are necessary is because humans won't do the right thing without a system forcing them to. Aka, congressmen won't refuse Big Money, so we should make term limits. Hey, how about the people refuse to vote for someone who is on Big Money's payroll and how about Congressmen take charge and refuse to deal with Big Money? Then we won't have to reform anything at all!

    Reforms aren't the end-all-be-all of human political behaviour, and I don't know exactly when or why Americans started thinking somehow they were the solution to our problems. A law, program, or policy isn't even 10% of what makes society work. It is the willingness to comply with, carry out, and respect the law that makes 90% of society. Hence, Prohibition - biggest most expensive reform of its time - failed because Americans at every level didn't respect it, refused to comply with it, and acted against it in anyway they could, however small; they invented a huge industry resisting it, an unmanageable economic force the government could never hope to regulate or control as long as it was in the shadows. War on Drugs failed for similar reasons.

    The answer isn't that we need to change how the Supreme Court works.

    We need our Supreme Court Justices to be better so that there is no need to even talk about replacing them.

    You don't need to ban alcohol. You barely need to ban anything. You need to know how to handle yourself -- become disciplined and strong willed enough -- so that addiction doesn't destroy yourself or others. That's a far more effective tether than all the rules, laws, and punishments in the world.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 07-01-14 at 06:49 PM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  10. #20
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,413

    Re: Should we change the terms for the US Supreme Court?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    The reason why people think reforms are necessary is because humans won't do the right thing without a system forcing them to. Aka, congressmen won't refuse Big Money, so we should make term limits. Hey, how about the people refuse to vote for someone who is on Big Money's payroll and how about Congressmen take charge and refuse to deal with Big Money? Then we won't have to reform anything at all!

    Reforms aren't the end-all-be-all of human political behaviour, and I don't know exactly when or why Americans started thinking somehow they were the solution to our problems. A law, program, or policy isn't even 10% of what makes society work. It is the willingness to comply with, carry out, and respect the law that makes 90% of society. Hence, Prohibition - biggest most expensive reform of its time - failed because Americans at every level didn't respect it, refused to comply with it, and acted against it in anyway they could, however small; they invented a huge industry resisting it, an unmanageable economic force the government could never hope to regulate or control as long as it was in the shadows. War on Drugs failed for similar reasons.

    The answer isn't that we need to change how the Supreme Court works.

    We need our Supreme Court Justices to be better so that there is no need to even talk about replacing them.

    You don't need to ban alcohol. You barely need to ban anything. You need to know how to handle yourself -- become disciplined and strong willed enough -- so that addiction doesn't destroy yourself or others. That's a far more effective tether than all the rules, laws, and punishments in the world.
    Pretty much agree with this. I think it's the lazy way out. An attempt to "fix" things and still remain uninvolved.

    As far as limits go, whether it be political office or the SC, but especially political office, why do people think that their longed-for knight in shining armor will magically pop up and lead us forward?
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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
  •