Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Save your little imagination for playtime, chump. I'll tell you what I mean when I say something.no, you never outright said it, but it is implied ....I never said that judges were "perfect," you lying sack of shit. I also never said they didn't have opinions or political/judicial leanings one way or another. Pay attention.
Yes, I do."Americans need to exercise better judgement ourselves in electing presidents" You dont really think that will solve the problem do you? .
I was thinking more along the lines of Sotomayer, Ginsberg, Kagan and Breyer.Get rid of Scalia and Thomas?
Should American's determination of a right presidential vote be based on who the candidate might or might not appoint to the SC?
That should certainly be one of the very important considerations of an informed electorate in making such an important decision.Should American's determination of a right presidential vote be based on who the candidate might or might not appoint to the SC?
That should certainly be one of the very important considerations of an informed electorate in making such an important decision.Should American's determination of a right presidential vote be based on who the candidate might or might not appoint to the SC?
The people have many issues in mind and shouldn't be cowed into voting one way or the other under threat of what appointments a candidate would make. .
Nominating justices is one of the functions of the Chief Executive. If that's too much for the likes of you to keep in mind when voting, then we get stuck with the occasional dud. I blame you and your ilk for being too lazy and too stupid to exercise your vote responsibly.The people have many issues in mind and shouldn't be cowed into voting one way or the other under threat of what appointments a candidate would make. .That should certainly be one of the very important considerations of an informed electorate in making such an important decision.
Nominating justices is one of the functions of the Chief Executive. If that's too much for the likes of you to keep in mind when voting, then we get stuck with the occasional dud. I blame you and your ilk for being too lazy and too stupid to exercise your vote responsibly.The people have many issues in mind and shouldn't be cowed into voting one way or the other under threat of what appointments a candidate would make. .
Most cases heard by SCOTUS are based upon discretionary appeal. There are a few cases in which SCOTUS must hear the case, there are even some cases where SCOTUS has original jurisdiction (as opposed to appealate jurisdiction) but those instances are few and far between.
Application for these discretionary appeals is made through what is called a "Petition for Writ of Certiorari". The criteria for granting the writ of cert is found in Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules and can be summarized as follow:
1.) If there is a split in authority between the lower Circuit Courts of Appeal on the issue.
2.) A state supreme court has decided a federal issue which is in conflict with the decisions of other states supreme courts or the opinions of a US Circuit Court of Appeal
3.) A state court or a US Circuit of Appeals has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.
It really does not matter what the recommendations are of the lower court.
Yes, the justices know the rules and laws that apply. Nonetheless, are you going to try to pretend what motivates every last supreme court justice? They are human, and subject to the same wills and whims we are. Now, try to argue that a majority of justices never in history took a case on a whim. LMAO
The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection: The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices
.
Yeah keep making circles, cuckoo. That's about all you're good for. Allowing unworthy dopes like you to vote is why we end up poorly represented.cuckoo:Nominating justices is one of the functions of the Chief Executive. If that's too much for the likes of you to keep in mind when voting, then we get stuck with the occasional dud. I blame you and your ilk for being too lazy and too stupid to exercise your vote responsibly.
You haven't offered a constructive criticism yet.
Yes I have, idiot. You did not 'come up with' some clever notion. All you've done here is demonstrate that you are too lazy and ignorant to be a worthy citizen of the United States.You haven't offered a constructive criticism yet.
10 year term limits and their done....Draw names out of a group of eligible lawyers,judges
This was basically how it was in the Articles of Confederation
at the time of the revolution there were disputes between states over western territories. The states were very interested in coming up with a fair way to resolve the disputes. What they came up with in the Articles of Confederation was a kind of random system where the last step was drawing names out of a pool for the judges.
also have extra names drawn as replacements when main Judges should recuse themselves (which they should probably do more often)
Why?
It wasn't a 'bad' idea, it was a fucking horrible idea. Do you recall why that scumbag FDR threatened to pack the court?
The people do make the call, and the "check" is to be more careful who we elect president, as current circumstances make all too clear.
The court has not grown with the growth in Our population.
We should add more judges to the SC as FDR wanted
The court has not grown with the growth in Our population.
We should add more judges to the SC as FDR wanted
It hasn't?The court has not grown with the growth in Our population.
We should add morejudges to the SC as FDR wanted
Didn't the SCOTUS approved the largest socialist usurpation of power since 1935 - Obama Hellcare?
.
