- Joined
- Feb 17, 2015
- Messages
- 420
- Reaction score
- 226
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Whaddaya mean? It was the best speech the man has ever given!
I just think he is feeling a little dizzy late from all the .......
Whaddaya mean? It was the best speech the man has ever given!
Nothing I am implying even comes close to a "Slippery Slope"....do you know what a Slippery Slope is? What you are advocating is doing away with the core structure of the Constitution and the principles that it stands for. What you are really advocating is to eliminate the Constitution.....at least be honest about it.
We have a great constitution, the greatest constitution on earth.
One of the great things about it is the amendment process which makes it a living document. So, just like we amended the constitution to allow people to vote for their senators, if we were to do the same amendment process to allow the people to vote for their Supreme Court justices, I would applaud that as a victory for democracy, the constitution, and Americans.
I don't believe anybody is so high and mighty that they should be above the "inconvenience" of having to be elected. Supreme Court judges are human like the rest of us.
We elect our president, we elect our representatives, our senators, our governors, our mayors, etc. why should our judges not be held to the same standard?
Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Campaign : It's All Politics : NPR
Well so much for the SCOTUS ruling not being an election issue. I wonder how much traction the judicial elections amendment will get. I am sure the liberals would love another shot at Citizens United and Hobby Lobby in their lifetime.There is a reason the founding fathers wanted to put justices above the sway of election cycles and political parties.It might not go like Cruz thinks.
Supreme Court judges eliminate the constitution every time they legislate from the bench...they were never intended to have such power.
By using constitutional processes to hold them accountable to the American People, we can reestablish the intent of the constitution - to have three separate but equal branches of government.
American government, I strongly feel, ought to be of the people, by the people, and for THE PEOPLE.
That's not 9 unelected autocrats serving for life. Let them be accountable to the people of the United States. Let the people decide.
Sen. Cruz may be right that we need a constitutional amendment to allow Supreme Court justices to be evaluated and removed. I haven't read the details of what he is suggesting. I think a supermajority vote should apply in any action that drastic.
Whatever 2-3 people you're talking about does not really speak for a general depiction of the right wing's reaction. :lol:
This is a phenomenal idea.s.No reason 9 unelected boobs should get to lord over 350 million of u
Me and my husband and my sister and her husband and my niece and nephew and my 2 brothers in law. That's 8!
This is a phenomenal idea. No reason 9 unelected boobs should get to lord over 350 million of us.
None of the three branches were meant to be wholly democratic. We have an electoral college for the executive. Originally, senators were appointed and not elected.
Women and minorities were also originally not allowed to vote.
Luckily, we have improved and democratized our system of government over the years. The electoral college is impotent. Senators are now elected.
I favor holding Supreme Court elections just like we elect senators...in rotating 6 year terms.
Me and my husband and my sister and her husband and my niece and nephew and my 2 brothers in law. That's 8!
Definitely an important group within the GOP voting blocks. Will you release your detailed thoughts on the matter before next week? :lol:
I always love the criticism of "unelected judges," as if they spontaneously appear from the wild and take over our nation.
I don't think I would go as far as to have Supreme Court justices elected, for the same reasons the Framers chose not to do that. A balance has to be struck between insulating the Supreme Court from temporary political shifts and letting it be a law unto itself, as it just was in Obergefell. I think the balance the Constitution strikes is not too far off. Justices may be impeached and tried, and in the early days of this country one of them was. The Court depends entirely on the Executive Branch to enforce its decisions, and even then, no president could hope to enforce a decision if many states refused to comply with it. A president may also decline to enforce a Supreme Court decision he believes to be unconstitutional, as Lincoln did with Dred Scott v. Sandford. Or, a president may dilute the power of current justices by appointing more, as Roosevelt proposed to do by having twelve instead of nine.
Congress can check the Judicial Branch, too. It can make laws to alter the Court's decisions--the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which weakened the effect of Employment Division v. Smith, is just one example. Congress can even make a law that completely removes the Court's jurisdiction over a case, as it did in Ex Parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506 (1869). If interpreted broadly, McCardle suggests that Congress could in effect overrule Marbury v. Madison by not providing for the Supreme Court's appellate or certiorari jurisdiction. It is pretty clear Congress could remove the jurisdiction of lower federal courts, considering they only exist at all because it created them by law.
Sen. Cruz may be right that we need a constitutional amendment to allow Supreme Court justices to be evaluated and removed. I haven't read the details of what he is suggesting. I think a supermajority vote should apply in any action that drastic.
Oh democrats. People like you always seem to think the masses should be trusted with power because they are "wise". How quaint.
Why should the Supreme Court be insulated from the will of the very people it is meant to govern? The American People are not idiots or children, we can govern ourselves quote capably.
The safeguards to judicial power you have outlined, while important, represent an emergency brake when what we, the Anerican Public, require, is much more involved oversight.
I think we have a fundamental difference of political philosophy. I understand that the American People will get it wrong from time to time, just as the unelected 9 will get it wrong a lot of the time as well. History has proven both of these statements out.
But when the cards are laid down....I would much rather ride with the Anerican People than with 9 elitist appointees who hide behind their robes and their marble walls.
Cruz is Donald Trump with a law degree. They will both, hopefully, not find their way onto the stage for many or any Republican debates.
Oh actually I hope they will be in all the debates. They'll be far more entertaining that way.
The American people voted against the freedom of others based on nothing other than personal feelings. **** em. The people had it wrong, and the court corrected it.
What's quaint about democracy, may I ask? Autocratic systems are much older, and, in some cases more romantic.
But, much as we might wish for our Supreme Court to be a King Arthur and the Knights if the round table parallel, they're really just 9 overpaid lawyers with 100 percent job security for life