• 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

So our judicial system should be nothing more than another arm of the legislative branch?
Not at all, but neither should it be a legislative body. Let's face it, sometimes the left's best hope of getting unpopular things imposed on us is to put judges on the bench that will accomplish it without the need for trying to advance legislation that can never pass.
 
Payback is a political reality and probably the only thing that keeps politicians from feeling they can act with impunity. I do like your eye for an eye quote, even though I don't agree with it.

Just because it is a political reality does not mean that it is acceptable. Murder is a reality, That doesn't mean it's acceptable. When you start accepting things like this, you become part of the problem. Revenge solves nothing except to give someone an emotional "high".
 
Have you ever read the Constitution, CC? It's not hard to follow. It's only when it's stretched to justify results oriented rulings that it gets complicated.

It was intended to be an evolving document, that is why there is so much room for interpretation... the BOR especially.
 
"Legislating from the bench" is simply a code phrase for "ruling I don't like". It has pretty much zero meaning.

I couldn't disagree more. “Legislating from the bench” occurs when a court overreaches its Article III constitutional authority and creates law. Do you deny this occurs?
 
I wonder if this might be a solution: The executive branch's power, in general, has grown beyond what was originally envisioned. So, to mitigate this, remove the involvement of that branch entirely. Give it to the legislature thus: they must appoint a panel consisting of judges who's responsibility is to appoint new Judges. Each side would appoint an equal number to the panel, with a final single appointee appointed by agreement of both parties in the Congress. If no agreement can be reached on this appointee by a specified date, the "partisan" panelists would take over that responsibility. If they cannot agree, then they would be barred from being nominated again to the panel permanently, and the process would begin again.

Presumably, over time, the quality of judges would improve as far as non-partisanship. Thus, the panel itself would improve, and the process would deadlock less often.

I envision the panel holding the responsibility for appointing Supremes as well. I believe this system would restore credibility to the judicial branch over time, which would be an awesome thing.
 
Not at all, but neither should it be a legislative body. Let's face it, sometimes the left's best hope of getting unpopular things imposed on us is to put judges on the bench that will accomplish it without the need for trying to advance legislation that can never pass.

But the same could be said of the Right as well.
 
Just because it is a political reality does not mean that it is acceptable. Murder is a reality, That doesn't mean it's acceptable. When you start accepting things like this, you become part of the problem. Revenge solves nothing except to give someone an emotional "high".
Really? What ever happened to "turn around's fair play"?
 
Really? What ever happened to "turn around's fair play"?

I never said that, so obviously I don't buy into it. You do something because you believe in it, not to "stick it" to the other guy. The latter is how nothing gets solved.
 
It was intended to be an evolving document, that is why there is so much room for interpretation... the BOR especially.
You realize it's it's that "room for interpretation" that resulted in Roe v. Wade. The Supremes somehow found a "right to privacy" that the Constitution never even mentions.
 
I wonder if this might be a solution: The executive branch's power, in general, has grown beyond what was originally envisioned. So, to mitigate this, remove the involvement of that branch entirely. Give it to the legislature thus: they must appoint a panel consisting of judges who's responsibility is to appoint new Judges. Each side would appoint an equal number to the panel, with a final single appointee appointed by agreement of both parties in the Congress. If no agreement can be reached on this appointee by a specified date, the "partisan" panelists would take over that responsibility. If they cannot agree, then they would be barred from being nominated again to the panel permanently, and the process would begin again.

Presumably, over time, the quality of judges would improve as far as non-partisanship. Thus, the panel itself would improve, and the process would deadlock less often.

I envision the panel holding the responsibility for appointing Supremes as well. I believe this system would restore credibility to the judicial branch over time, which would be an awesome thing.

Actually, I would prefer something different.

The Senate would vote to appoint these judges within a time limit. Should the Senate not come to a majority, then the President has the power to appoint whoever he wants, and cannot be stopped by Congress.

This way, Congress will either come to a consensus or suffer someone else exercising the power. And I would prefer that the President retain his checks on the judiciary. I am very much a fan of checks and balances.
 
You realize it's it's that "room for interpretation" that resulted in Roe v. Wade. The Supremes somehow found a "right to privacy" that the Constitution never even mentions.

Not quite. SCOTUS thought the Founding Fathers implied a right to privacy within the Constitution, and used the Ninth Amendment, which admits that the Constitution does not exhaustively list all the enumerated rights of citizens, as justification.
 
You realize it's it's that "room for interpretation" that resulted in Roe v. Wade. The Supremes somehow found a "right to privacy" that the Constitution never even mentions.

But that is unConstitutional... so that is different. Right to privacy is intended for searches and seizures and such... nobody has a right to "privacy" in the Const. that is retarded. Can people twist it for their own agenda... well yes. It can also be taken back.
 
But the same could be said of the Right as well.
Not true. Right wing judges usually interpret the Constitution more...ah...conservatively.
 
I've read the Constitution. I find it writen vaguely, just as the founders intended, so it could be used for generations, and applied to situations that they had not even considered.

It was intended to be an evolving document, that is why there is so much room for interpretation... the BOR especially.

No and no. The constitution isn’t vague, it just isn’t being amended and updated as often as it should be. Do you have a credible source for these “founding father intentions”?

It isn’t an evolving document either, except for the evolutions resulting from amendments.
 
No and no. The constitution isn’t vague, it just isn’t being amended and updated as often as it should be. Do you have a credible source for these “founding father intentions”?

It isn’t an evolving document either, except for the evolutions resulting from amendments.

No and no? It isn't an evolving document except for the evolutions... I love it. LOL!
 
So you only want judges to interpret based on your partisan beliefs. You fail to see the problem with this?

I want judges who will not reinterpret the laws and constitution based on their political beliefs.They should only literally interpret the laws and the constitution based on the views of those who wrote the laws and constitution. So that clearly means nobody who thinks the constitution is a living document that can be "reinterpreted" instead of going through the amendment process to add,remove or restrict rights.So that clearly means no liberal judges.
 
Last edited:
No and no. The constitution isn’t vague, it just isn’t being amended and updated as often as it should be. Do you have a credible source for these “founding father intentions”?

It isn’t an evolving document either, except for the evolutions resulting from amendments.

Wrong, and of course there are credible sources. Madison and Hamilton. I have to step out for a few minutes. If someone can get the quotes for me, I'd appreciate it. If not, I'll do it when I get back.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I would prefer something different.

The Senate would vote to appoint these judges within a time limit. Should the Senate not come to a majority, then the President has the power to appoint whoever he wants, and cannot be stopped by Congress.

This way, Congress will either come to a consensus or suffer someone else exercising the power. And I would prefer that the President retain his checks on the judiciary. I am very much a fan of checks and balances.

I still like my system better, but considering your system: I believe there ought to be consensus of the people about nominees. The presidency alone is not an office best representative of the consensus. I would prefer a system which requires a consensus which does not default to the power devolving to a partisan, namely the president. That is really the root of the problem being addressed here. Your solution, while solving the problem of facilitating appointment for it's own sake, at the same time increases the partisanship. Can you think of a way to avoid this, in the context of your suggestion?

As it stands, I don't see your suggestion as doing anything at all to restore confidence in the Judiciary.
 
But that is unConstitutional... so that is different. Right to privacy is intended for searches and seizures and such... nobody has a right to "privacy" in the Const. that is retarded. Can people twist it for their own agenda... well yes. It can also be taken back.
We haven't been able to take it back in 30 years. This is why we want people on the bench who interpret what the Constitution actually says, not what they think the founding fathers meant to "imply".
 
Wrong, and of course there are credible sources. Madison and Hamilton. I have to step out for a few minutes. If someone can get the quotes for me, I'd appreciate it. If not, I'll do it when I get back.

I'm AFK for a bit too.
 
No and no? It isn't an evolving document except for the evolutions... I love it. LOL!
I think what he meant was the way to adapt the Constitution is through properly amending it, not through activist interpretation.
 
I was pretty clear.

the BOR evolves... yeah, got it. And why did you say no to me then, eh? How does what I say merit your no when you go on to say what I said almost word for word, top that off with your near contradiction and we aren't gettin' very far, are we.
 
Back
Top Bottom