• 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!

Would You Support this Amendment?

Would you support an Amendment that makes Supreme Court justices elected?

  • Yes, they should be elected by the PEOPLE.

    Votes: 3 6.4%

  • Yes, but they should be elected by CONGRESS

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes, by the PEOPLE and they should be subject to TERM LIMITS.

    Votes: 1 2.1%

  • Yes, by the CONGRESS and they should be subject to TERM LIMITS

    Votes: 2 4.3%

  • No, the current system is fine.

    Votes: 41 87.2%
  • Total voters
    47
roguenuke said:
A judges job is interpretation, because a) you will never get a complete agreement on either what words mean nor why people want a law in place to begin with, and b) times change. Laws must change with them.
Click to expand...
I voted for judiciary voted by congress with term limits (and are eligible for multiple terms). Judges can be impeached and removed from the bench, BTW.

As many judges are want to do, they 'bend' The Constitution with interpretations that are applicable to their political views. Instead of bending The Constitution, I assert amendments must be introduced that would more completely and concisely cover the topic at hand in The Constitution.

Sidenote: Many posters to this thread have stated they wouldn't want a judiciary that is beholden to the public by winning elections. How does the public make the judiciary beholden to The Constitution and not to political whims of the judiciary?
Second sidenote: The Constitution was first implemented with the average American in mind and with little federal government.
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
I voted for judiciary voted by congress with term limits (and are eligible for multiple terms). Judges can be impeached and removed from the bench, BTW.

As many judges are want to do, they 'bend' The Constitution with interpretations that are applicable to their political views. Instead of bending The Constitution, I assert amendments must be introduced that would more completely and concisely cover the topic at hand in The Constitution.

Sidenote: Many posters to this thread have stated they wouldn't want a judiciary that is beholden to the public by winning elections. How does the public make the judiciary beholden to The Constitution and not to political whims of the judiciary?
Second sidenote: The Constitution was first implemented with the average American in mind and with little federal government.
Click to expand...

If the vast majority of the public does not approve of a SCOTUS decision, they can put into place a Constitutional Amendment to specifically make the necessary change to nullify the SCOTUS ruling. A President could simply choose to not enforce the ruling if it were that big of a deal to enough of the population.
 
RJApple said:
Would you support an Amendment to the US Constitution that makes Supreme Court justices elected officials, rather than appointed ones? Should they be elected directly by the people, or by Congress? Please, post the reasoning behind your answer.

Personally, I can see two sides of this argument. On one hand, the Court has not done too well with its powers of interpretation recently, as is exemplified by the same-sex marriage ruling, in which they decided that marriage laws were not up to the states, despite the fact that marriage is not even mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore, as many recent appointees don't seem to understand how to properly interpret our nation's foundational document, perhaps We The People should take over and elect the justices. However, given that popular sentiment is moving ever-further to the left, there is a strong chance that such a measure would only make the situation worse. And, besides, do we need to subject the population to yet another type of election season? ;) Perhaps this problem might be avoided by having them elected by the Congress?
Click to expand...


this statement alone shows you have little understanding of the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. How am I to entrust you to help choose Justices?

Those the wish to "change" the court wish to do so in the hopes of slowing the progressive move of the nation as reflected in the Court's rulings.

Electing or appointing the Justices will not change the progressive move of the court since it's formation to expanding rights to all US
Citizens.
 
roguenuke said:
If the vast majority of the public does not approve of a SCOTUS decision, they can put into place a Constitutional Amendment to specifically make the necessary change to nullify the SCOTUS ruling. A President could simply choose to not enforce the ruling if it were that big of a deal to enough of the population.
Click to expand...
I fear amendments to The Constitution are a thing of the past.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The courts of late have overturned and rewritten many laws passed by the people's elected representatives, and in 'liberal land' it is expected that the court's opinion shall reign supreme unless overturned by a higher court. And once the SCOTUS has ruled, that's it. THAT is the law. Never mind what the people's representatives intended the law to be. The Founders certainly never intended the court to have such power and in fact intended that the judiciary be the weakest of the three parts of government so that the courts would not present a danger to the people's liberties. The court was given absolutely no power to make or change the law.

But now the court decides how we the people shall live our lives. David Barton, author and historian, recently said: "“The courts and the judiciary — it seems like they’re into everything today,”. . . “They have the final word in shaping our national policies on things from healthcare, to marriage. From the right of personal self-protection to public religious expressions, and from criminal justice matters to military policy issues. And we let them do it!”

Definition: Oligarchy: a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution. The judiciary would certainly fit that definition.
Click to expand...

Yet for 200 years we the people have allowed the SCOTUS to maintain the power of judicial review. I wonder why we haven't changed that yet if so many are against them having that power? Could it be that really not that many people are against such things and most actually approve of them having that power, even if just for those rulings they agree with?
 
roguenuke said:
Yet for 200 years we the people have allowed the SCOTUS to maintain the power of judicial review. I wonder why we haven't changed that yet if so many are against them having that power? Could it be that really not that many people are against such things and most actually approve of them having that power, even if just for those rulings they agree with?
Click to expand...
According to The Constitution, the judiciary was never to have power equal to any other branch of government yet equality exists. Who didn't follow The Constitution to allow that to happen?
 
roguenuke said:
Yet for 200 years we the people have allowed the SCOTUS to maintain the power of judicial review. I wonder why we haven't changed that yet if so many are against them having that power? Could it be that really not that many people are against such things and most actually approve of them having that power, even if just for those rulings they agree with?
Click to expand...

Nobody complains about them exercising judicial review when appropriate to do so. But I think all constitutionalists object to them rewriting or making laws which they never were given authority to do.
 
1751Texan said:
this statement alone shows you have little understanding of the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. How am I to entrust you to help choose Justices?

Those the wish to "change" the court wish to do so in the hopes of slowing the progressive move of the nation as reflected in the Court's rulings.

Electing or appointing the Justices will not change the progressive move of the court since it's formation to expanding rights to all US
Citizens.
Click to expand...

As I have previously stated, I have not taken a side in this debate. I just wanted to present the question.

I do agree that there's very little anyone can do to cease the nation's leftward move. At the end of the day, history seems to bear out that government policy will generally capitulate to the whiles of the time sooner or later.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Nobody complains about them exercising judicial review when appropriate to do so. But I think all constitutionalists object to them rewriting or making laws which they never were given authority to do.
Click to expand...

Not true. People complain about judicial review they don't personally think should happen. It doesn't matter if others think it is appropriate or not or if the constitution allows or even calls for it.

The SCOTUS has never rewritten any laws. They have made many invalid. And legal precedent is part of our legal system.
 
cabse5 said:
According to The Constitution, the judiciary was never to have power equal to any other branch of government yet equality exists. Who didn't follow The Constitution to allow that to happen?
Click to expand...

Where exactly is it written in the constitution that the judicial branch specifically wasn't supposed to have power equal to that if the other branches? Also how are their powers equal exactly? That would be hard to prove since evaluating equality is pretty subjective in this type of situation.
 
Hell no. One thing very few of the public has is legal training. What you propose is how you end up with zealots like roger moore, the alabama judge who was impeached and elected *again* and then tried to undermine a supreme court ruling *again*

If anything we need more distance people the common mind and the supreme court
 
cabse5 said:
According to The Constitution, the judiciary was never to have power equal to any other branch of government yet equality exists. Who didn't follow The Constitution to allow that to happen?
Click to expand...

the other branches, by refusing to do their job to actually govern and do so constitutionally, have ceded power to the federal courts

it's not the fault of federal courts that we get trash like "DOMA", discriminatory voter initiatives, and bathroom laws that need to be done away with
 
Kal'Stang said:
Three problems with a 20 year term limit.

1st: A 20 year term limit would make it to where it would fall on an election year. Look at what is happening with this election. People are more concerned with appointing a judge that follows their ideology than with whether or not we have valid, viable POTUS's. They're not caring who gets elected so long as its "their side" so that they can appoint a SCOTUS judge that fits their ideology. Instead of what a SCOTUS judge SHOULD be about. Upholding the Constitution and the BoR's no matter ideology.

Right now a President is elected every 4 years. In just 5 elections SCOTUS judges would be being replaced. For the Senate/Congress we're having elections pretty much every 2 years due to the staggered nature of how its set up. The Presidential elections and the Senate/Congress elections are even numbered years. Combine that with the long term limit of 20 years as is being suggested here that means that elections are not going to be just about who would best be POTUS/Senator/Congressmen, but about who should be appointed as a SCOTUS judge. Again, elections of POTUS/Senate/Congress would be geared toward "fixing" SCOTUS rulings to favor X party.

2nd: If such a term limit were to be placed on SCOTUS judges it would HAVE to be staggered like we have with the Senate/Congress elections. Not a particularly good idea to replace every single judge at the same time. Easy fix, but something that should be looked at never the less when talking about term limits for what used to be a life time position.

3rd: SCOTUS's main function is to decide on the Constitutionality of XYZ laws. By putting term limits on SCOTUS judges it would make it to where the Constitution could be reinterpreted even more than it is now. If people think that its bad now...wait till you have term limits for the position. I wish there was a way to prevent SCOTUS judges from ruling based on ideology, but frankly there's not. Each time that a SCOTUS judge is appointed they bring their ideology of how something in the Constitution should be interpreted. Regardless of the actual true intent of the writers of the Constitution/BoR's. I'm a big believer that if something about the Constitution should be changed due to the changing demographics/ideology of the times then it should be changed via the amendment process. That is what it was made for and is why the Constitution is considered a "living document". Because its changeable to fit the times. It should NOT be changed via re-interpretations based on the ideology of 9 people. It SHOULD be changed based on the ideology of the entire society combined where possible, where not possible then it should be changed based on the ideology of 2/3rds of the society.
Click to expand...

There are ways around the current problem. If up to me, the constitution would include a provision that the senate MUST confirm federal judges within 3 weeks, or else the president gets to pick whoever without the senate's input. Then even on an election year, the seat would be filled....Actually on many occasions a supreme court WAS filled on election year. This total dysfunction in the senate is really unprecedented and i'm sure the founders never imagined this possible. But clearly the politicians are not to be trusted to do basic functions of their job any more
 
Captain Adverse said:
NO! This has been raised before.

Elected officials are beholden to the electorate. As already demonstrated in differing States, (just look at any where pro-life or anti-gay rights issues come before them) elected judges pander to those who have the power to re-elect them.

Appointed judges are immune to politics once appointed. They can rule on the merits of the case rather than worry about getting re-elected.
Click to expand...

and what happens when they do not and actually prioritize the constitution above bigot voters? They don't win re-election, as happened to the iowa supreme court judges

Of course, we could use this as an argument that the president and legislature should not be elected either, but at least we have one branch in the federal courts to keep their antics somewhat in check
 
Sherman123 said:
Oh good god no. Though I'm open to being persuaded that we should expand the number of justices on the court (say from nine to twelve) in order to increase the ideological diversity therein.
Click to expand...

That's an alteration i could get behind, although things are so partisan now it can't happen, as one president presumably would get to pick all of the new seats
 
chromium said:
There are ways around the current problem. If up to me, the constitution would include a provision that the senate MUST confirm federal judges within 3 weeks, or else the president gets to pick whoever without the senate's input. Then even on an election year, the seat would be filled....Actually on many occasions a supreme court WAS filled on election year. This total dysfunction in the senate is really unprecedented and i'm sure the founders never imagined this possible. But clearly the politicians are not to be trusted to do basic functions of their job any more
Click to expand...

3 weeks is hardly enough time to vet a judge that's going to be sitting in our highest court of the land. Particularly if the one chosen by the POTUS is determined to not be suited for the task.
 
cabse5 said:
According to The Constitution, the judiciary was never to have power equal to any other branch of government yet equality exists. Who didn't follow The Constitution to allow that to happen?
Click to expand...

No branch of government has power "equal to the others." Each branch has it's own powers, and the exercise of such powers allows a balance so that no single branch dominates all others.

The judicial branch is doing exactly what it was meant to do.

Otherwise, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), which established the doctrine of judicial review a mere 12 years after the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1791 would have led the living Framers and/or ratifying States to a enact a Constitutional amendment stating otherwise.
 
Kal'Stang said:
3 weeks is hardly enough time to vet a judge that's going to be sitting in our highest court of the land. Particularly if the one chosen by the POTUS is determined to not be suited for the task.
Click to expand...

well whatever amount of time but not a freaking year like they're trying to do now, and i would add it has to be before the next president takes office
 
roguenuke said:
Not true. People complain about judicial review they don't personally think should happen. It doesn't matter if others think it is appropriate or not or if the constitution allows or even calls for it.

The SCOTUS has never rewritten any laws. They have made many invalid. And legal precedent is part of our legal system.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS has written many laws, probably the most famous being Roe v Wade. They wrote it, and it became the law of the land without ever being debated or voted on by either the House or the Senate or signed into law by the President.
 
AlbqOwl said:
SCOTUS has written many laws, probably the most famous being Roe v Wade. They wrote it, and it became the law of the land without ever being debated or voted on by either the House or the Senate or signed into law by the President.
Click to expand...

They didn't write any law even with RvW. They invalidated laws that made abortion illegal. That is not writing an actual law. It is voiding laws against something.
 
roguenuke said:
They didn't write any law even with RvW. They invalidated laws that made abortion illegal. That is not writing an actual law. It is voiding laws against something.
Click to expand...

I don't read it that way. But do have a nice day.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I don't read it that way. But do have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Of course not. And that is basically one of my major points, interpretation and how people read laws and our Constitution differ from person to person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom