• 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

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.

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.
 
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.
 
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?

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

come out of your closets, chancellors
 
Of all the decisions a U.S. Senator makes, federal bench advise and consent votes can be argued to be most the consequential and enduring. I think a little thought and consideration is completely appropriate when addressing these nominations.
 
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?

If you think the SCOTUS is politicized now, imagine a general election with judges running “vote for me” commercials. What a nightmare. There is a reason the framers of our constitution tried to keep them out of the political fray. Do you really want judges to be beholden to an electorate?
 
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.

This is an excellent post.

I don’t think anyone can expect a justice to give a pre-determined ruling on the merits of a case but when asked to explain, in general terms, what their interpretations are on certain portions of the constitution, I think they owe an honest answer to all of us if they expect to be confirmed for a lifetime term in one of the most powerful branches of government.

Some simple questions about the limitations of the commerce clause or gun control would have been appropriate during nomination proceedings to vet a nominee and assure the American public that radical judges aren’t just getting rubber stamp approval to the highest court in the land.

They don’t have to answer case specific questions. No one can expect that. They should be obliged to answer some general constitutional litmus test types of questions however.
 
If you think the SCOTUS is politicized now, imagine a general election with judges running “vote for me” commercials. What a nightmare. There is a reason the framers of our constitution tried to keep them out of the political fray. Do you really want judges to be beholden to an electorate?

Apparently you still don't get my suggestions. There is no election. The President still nominates. The ONLY thing that is done differently is who actually confirms them, or doesn't (the "jury" or the specialist panel). The Congress can still impeach. The President still enforces...or not. Amendment process is still exactly the same.

Basically it would add another check to the system.
 
Apparently you still don't get my suggestions. There is no election. The President still nominates. The ONLY thing that is done differently is who actually confirms them, or doesn't (the "jury" or the specialist panel). The Congress can still impeach. The President still enforces...or not. Amendment process is still exactly the same.

Basically it would add another check to the system.

Jury/specialist panel?

Sounds promising. Tell me more.
 
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 couldn't agree more. This is much deeper than "petty politics" and "tit for tat" as some would say. Judicial appointments have proven to be extremely consequential to how cases are decided.
 
Back
Top Bottom