• 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!

Abolish the Supreme Court?

Abolish the Supreme Court?

  • Total voters
    59
Logician Man said:
To stop both political parties from stacking the court with political ideologies of like mind for decades.
Click to expand...

Looking at the history of the court there’s really no evidence that that actually happens. SC justices often rule contrary to the way the people who appointed them would have wanted them to. I’m short most justices appear to be stubbornly independent.

On the other taking away life tenure increases the possibility that justices become partisan.
 
Gaius46 said:
Looking at the history of the court there’s really no evidence that that actually happens. SC justices often rule contrary to the way the people who appointed them would have wanted them to. I’m short most justices appear to be stubbornly independent.

On the other taking away life tenure increases the possibility that justices become partisan.
Click to expand...

The times have changed in case you haven't noticed. Not really sure what you mean by 'I'm short most justices appear to be stubbornly independent."
 
Harshaw said:
What does that mean to you, "defend the Supreme Court"? Arguing that it should not be abolished?
Click to expand...

Yes, that is just what I advocate. Judges should be sentencing criminals to extremely severe punishment. They should not be overturning popular legislation.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I still trust SCOTUS more than Congress or the Presidency, so my answer is no. I would be in favor of getting rid of the Presidency before getting rid of SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

Assuming you mean changing from a presidential system to a parliamentary system, yeah, I could get on board with that.
 
Logician Man said:
The times have changed in case you haven't noticed. Not really sure what you mean by 'I'm short most justices appear to be stubbornly independent."
Click to expand...

I meant to say:

In short most justices appear to be stubbornly independent

iPhone autocorrect and my big thumbs strike again


The numbers I referenced are since 2001. I don’t think the times have changed nearly as much as many people assume they have.
 
SmartCat said:
Yes, that is just what I advocate. Judges should be sentencing criminals to extremely severe punishment. They should not be overturning popular legislation.
Click to expand...

Slavery was popular at one time.
 
Gaius46 said:
I meant to say:

In short most justices appear to be stubbornly independent

iPhone autocorrect and my big thumbs strike again


The numbers I referenced are since 2001. I don’t think the times have changed nearly as much as many people assume they have.
Click to expand...

Thx...I can certainly relate to 'fatfingeritis.'
 
Harshaw said:
This interviewee at Vox thinks so:

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/12/17950896/supreme-court-brett-kavanaugh-constitution

He's a Harvard law professor.

Personally, I don't see Vox running this article as anything more than "we didn't get our way on Kavanaugh, so get rid of the whole Supreme Court!" Which is ludicrously childish. Destroying the system because it doesn't produce the results you want is asinine.

But that's just me. What do you say?
Click to expand...

I don't want to abolish the SC but I see no reason why it shouldn't have more Justices and when 2020 rolls around that might be a good time to enlarge it to 11.
 
I have been voting Democratic since the 1980's to make sure the court was a court to the center left. Because of Sanders running in 2016 and his following decided to vote for Gary Johnson or even Trump himself so Sanders can run in 2020. I say, look at the court you got to deal with as late as the 2040's. The left with protesting gave us Nixon in 1968, Reagan in 1980, Bush in 2000, and Trump in 2016.
 
Cardinal said:
There is an unsubtle difference between a nominee with a political background and a nominee who has openly and nakedly expressed hatred for one party...during his interview for the job, no less. Although I'm not an expert in history, I would be surprised to learn that there were confirmation hearings in which the nominee threatened revenge against a party once he was confirmed. But then, the 19th century was a crazy time, filled with brawling Senators and duels that ended in death, so who knows.
Click to expand...

A very biased nonsensical response. He was responding to vile/false/uncorroborated allegations being push and supported by a very specific group. (Democratic Senators)
He had every right to call out the guilty parties and he did. Any innocent person would react the same way. The phony fix failed to stop the nomination and once again the left id whining about it.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
A very biased nonsensical response. He was responding to vile/false/uncorroborated allegations being push and supported by a very specific group. (Democratic Senators)
He had every right to call out the guilty parties and he did. Any innocent person would react the same way. The phony fix failed to stop the nomination and once again the left id whining about it.
Click to expand...

He had a right to espouse Clinton revenge conspiracy theories and vow revenge once he was seated?
 
SmartCat said:
And the Supreme Court found it perfectly legal.
Click to expand...

Dredd Scott v Sanford is an indefensible decision and is rightly reviled.

That doesn’t change the fact that your suggestion to make the court slave to popular opinion would be an complete disaster.
 
iguanaman said:
I don't want to abolish the SC but I see no reason why it shouldn't have more Justices and when 2020 rolls around that might be a good time to enlarge it to 11.
Click to expand...

Tried in the past and failed.

Why did the court packing plan fail?
On February 5, 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt announces a controversial plan to expand the Supreme Court to as many as 15 judges, allegedly to make it more efficient. Critics immediately charged that Roosevelt was trying to “pack” the court and thus neutralize Supreme Court justices hostile to his New Deal.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
A very biased nonsensical response. He was responding to vile/false/uncorroborated allegations being push and supported by a very specific group. (Democratic Senators)
He had every right to call out the guilty parties and he did. Any innocent person would react the same way. The phony fix failed to stop the nomination and once again the left id whining about it.
Click to expand...

He also never threatened revenge. Cardinal just made that up.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
Tried in the past and failed.

Why did the court packing plan fail?
On February 5, 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt announces a controversial plan to expand the Supreme Court to as many as 15 judges, allegedly to make it more efficient. Critics immediately charged that Roosevelt was trying to “pack” the court and thus neutralize Supreme Court justices hostile to his New Deal.
Click to expand...

There is no Constitutional reason for a 9 member Supreme court. Congress set it many years ago and can change it if they wish. This writer says 27 would be an even better number. He makes a good case for it too.

Such a proposal isn’t unconstitutional, nor even that radical. There’s nothing sacred about the number nine, which isn’t found in the constitution and instead comes from an 1869 act of congress. Congress can pass a law changing the court’s size at any time. That contrasts it with other potentially meritorious reform ideas, like term limits, which would require amending the constitution and thus are unlikely to succeed. And countries, with much smaller populations, have much larger high courts. In 1869, when the number nine was chosen, the U.S. was roughly a tenth of its current size, laws and government institutions were far smaller and less complex, and the volume of cases was vastly lower. Supreme Court enlargement only seems radical because we have lost touch with the fundamentals of our living, breathing constitution. The flawed debate over court-packing is an opportunity to reexamine our idea of what a Supreme Court is, and some foundational, and wrong, assumptions.
Click to expand...

Why the Supreme Court Should Have 27 Justices, Not 9 | Time
 
Gaius46 said:
Dredd Scott v Sanford is an indefensible decision and is rightly reviled.

That doesn’t change the fact that your suggestion to make the court slave to popular opinion would be an complete disaster.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I trust the voters more than the Supreme Court justices for reasons I have already explained.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom