How to reform the Supreme Court

[dcraelin]

The court has not grown with the growth in Our population.
We should add morejudges to the SC as FDR wanted

It hasn't?
Didn't the SCOTUS approved the largest socialist usurpation of power since 1935 - Obama Hellcare?
.

I dont agree with SCOTUS on Obama/RomneyCare
They said the mandate wasnt a tax at one point I believe so they could here the case, then they turned around and said it was a tax. Shouldnt be able to have it both ways.

The case might have been better thought out with more judges.

I meant hear the case. sorry

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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.

I have to agree with that assessment. Anyone who believes who the President nominates to the Supreme Court isn't an issue is a special kind of stupid.

 

[bripat9643]

The court has not grown with the growth in Our population.

We should add more judges to the SC as FDR wanted

How does having more judges make for better decisions? If anything, it does the opposite. FDR wanted to create more judges so he could put his political cronies on the court and ram his agenda through regardless of what the Constitution says. In other words, his intent was precisely to have the court make worse decisions, not better decisions.

 

[Contumacious]

The court has not grown with the growth in Our population.
We should add morejudges to the SC as FDR wanted

It hasn't?
Didn't the SCOTUS approved the largest socialist usurpation of power since 1935 - Obama Hellcare?
.

I dont agree with SCOTUS on Obama/RomneyCare
They said the mandate wasnt a tax at one point I believe so they could here the case, then they turned around and said it was a tax. Shouldnt be able to have it both ways.

The case might have been better thought out with more judges.

What difference does it make if you have 9 state supremacists or 19?

.

 

[dcraelin]

The court has not grown with the growth in Our population. We should add more judges to the SC as FDR wanted

how does having more judges make for better decisions? If anything, it does the opposite. FDR wanted to create more judges so he could put his political cronies on the court and ram his agenda through regardless of what the Constitution says. In other words, his intent was precisely to have the court make worse decisions, not better decisions.

The existing judges were the ones who wanted their agenda no matter what the constitution said, as is evidenced by their suddenly changing course when threatened with retirement.

But whatever FDR's motivations were, more heads generally mean better decisions. His proposal actually was only to add judges for each judge that refused to retire when past the age of 70 I believe. This would make for good policy regardless.

 

[dcraelin]

It hasn't?
Didn't the SCOTUS approved the largest socialist usurpation of power since 1935 - Obama Hellcare?.

I dont agree with SCOTUS on Obama/RomneyCare
They said the mandate wasnt a tax at one point I believe so they could here the case, then they turned around and said it was a tax. Shouldnt be able to have it both ways.
The case might have been better thought out with more judges.

What difference does it make if you have 9 state supremacists or 19?
.

you may have a point. same appointers equals same general outlook but everyone thinks a little differently it would help with diversity of opinion.

My opening post also would help in this regard, so that appointments have a random aspect to them.

 

[dcraelin]

the Supreme court declined to hear a case about a New Mexican photographer declining to photograph a gay wedding.

Yet they hear the Hobby Lobby case?

They aught to be required to here every case as John Marshall said they should.

 

[bripat9643]

the Supreme court declined to hear a case about a New Mexican photographer declining to photograph a gay wedding.

Yet they hear the Hobby Lobby case?

They aught to be required to here every case as John Marshall said they should.

I agree with that.

 

[dcraelin]

here is another reason to have mandatory retirement for judges. This 84 year old was probably hounded by corrupt hedge fund managers until he made this insane decision to stop payment to all bond holders to aid the few unreasonable holdouts.


Argentine mess will test 84-year-old Judge Griesa | New York Post

 

[bripat9643]

The court has not grown with the growth in Our population. We should add more judges to the SC as FDR wanted

how does having more judges make for better decisions? If anything, it does the opposite. FDR wanted to create more judges so he could put his political cronies on the court and ram his agenda through regardless of what the Constitution says. In other words, his intent was precisely to have the court make worse decisions, not better decisions.

The existing judges were the ones who wanted their agenda no matter what the constitution said, as is evidenced by their suddenly changing course when threatened with retirement.

That is evidence of nothing other than the fact that FDR's manuever to bully the SC worked. The judges on the court wanted to maintain the traditional understanding of the Constitution. FDR wanted them to do some creating "interpretation" so he could ram through his fascist agenda.

But whatever FDR's motivations were, more heads generally mean better decisions. His proposal actually was only to add judges for each judge that refused to retire when past the age of 70 I believe. This would make for good policy regardless.

Nothing FDR did made for good policy.

 

[nodoginnafight]

We have a constitution now. End of story.

And the Constitution allows for amendments that could easily reform the SC back to its intended purpose...which it has FAR exceed.

Proposal - An Amendment that basically imposes:

• SC justice term limits
• Ability for a 3/5 vote from the House and Senate to override a majority opinion without being subject to Presidential veto
• Ability for 3/5 vote of the state legislatures to override a majority opinion

One only need to look a decisions like Marbury v Madison, Dred Scott V Sandford, Wickard v Filburn, Plessy v Ferguson, Korematsu v US, and many others to see that we need a remedy against a tyrannous and all powerful SC.

Horrible idea imho.
How do we protect our Constitutional rights when a majority in a single state can revoke those rights?

Not really well thought out imho.

 

[bripat9643]

We have a constitution now. End of story.

And the Constitution allows for amendments that could easily reform the SC back to its intended purpose...which it has FAR exceed.

Proposal - An Amendment that basically imposes:

• SC justice term limits
• Ability for a 3/5 vote from the House and Senate to override a majority opinion without being subject to Presidential veto
• Ability for 3/5 vote of the state legislatures to override a majority opinion

One only need to look a decisions like Marbury v Madison, Dred Scott V Sandford, Wickard v Filburn, Plessy v Ferguson, Korematsu v US, and many others to see that we need a remedy against a tyrannous and all powerful SC.

Horrible idea imho.
How do we protect our Constitutional rights when a majority in a single state can revoke those rights?

Not really well thought out imho.

"Reform" doesn't mean eliminate.

 

[nodoginnafight]

And the Constitution allows for amendments that could easily reform the SC back to its intended purpose...which it has FAR exceed.

Proposal - An Amendment that basically imposes:

• SC justice term limits
• Ability for a 3/5 vote from the House and Senate to override a majority opinion without being subject to Presidential veto
• Ability for 3/5 vote of the state legislatures to override a majority opinion

One only need to look a decisions like Marbury v Madison, Dred Scott V Sandford, Wickard v Filburn, Plessy v Ferguson, Korematsu v US, and many others to see that we need a remedy against a tyrannous and all powerful SC.

Horrible idea imho.
How do we protect our Constitutional rights when a majority in a single state can revoke those rights?

Not really well thought out imho.

"Reform" doesn't mean eliminate.

The proposed "reforms" gut the court's ability to protect the Constitutional rights of those in a minority position against the "tyranny of the masses" - which is an important function.

 

[dcraelin]

Horrible idea imho.
How do we protect our Constitutional rights when a majority in a single state can revoke those rights?

Not really well thought out imho.

"Reform" doesn't mean eliminate.

The proposed "reforms" gut the court's ability to protect the Constitutional rights of those in a minority position against the "tyranny of the masses" - which is an important function.

"tyranny of the masses" is an overwrought BS phrase

The BOR was not wanted by the founding framers...... so it wasn't an "important function" they thought of..............BOR came as AMENDMENTS passed due to pressure by the "tyrannous masses"

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We have a constitution now. End of story.

And the Constitution allows for amendments that could easily reform the SC back to its intended purpose...which it has FAR exceed.

Proposal - An Amendment that basically imposes:

• SC justice term limits
• Ability for a 3/5 vote from the House and Senate to override a majority opinion without being subject to Presidential veto
• Ability for 3/5 vote of the state legislatures to override a majority opinion

One only need to look a decisions like Marbury v Madison, Dred Scott V Sandford, Wickard v Filburn, Plessy v Ferguson, Korematsu v US, and many others to see that we need a remedy against a tyrannous and all powerful SC.

Horrible idea imho.
How do we protect our Constitutional rights when a majority in a single state can revoke those rights?

Not really well thought out imho.

It is a horrible idea, not just in your opinion, but as a matter of fact.

You're also correct that our rights are not subject to 'majority rule,' that in our Constitutional Republic one is subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly.

 

[RandallFlagg]

And the Constitution allows for amendments that could easily reform the SC back to its intended purpose...which it has FAR exceed.

Proposal - An Amendment that basically imposes:

• SC justice term limits
• Ability for a 3/5 vote from the House and Senate to override a majority opinion without being subject to Presidential veto
• Ability for 3/5 vote of the state legislatures to override a majority opinion

One only need to look a decisions like Marbury v Madison, Dred Scott V Sandford, Wickard v Filburn, Plessy v Ferguson, Korematsu v US, and many others to see that we need a remedy against a tyrannous and all powerful SC.

Horrible idea imho.
How do we protect our Constitutional rights when a majority in a single state can revoke those rights?

Not really well thought out imho.

It is a horrible idea, not just in your opinion, but as a matter of fact.

You're also correct that our rights are not subject to 'majority rule,' that in our Constitutional Republic one is subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly.

Sort of like that "Nation of laws" bullshit, right? You would deny as many rights as you saw fit were YOU to be in charge. You're not fooling anyone, you hypocrite bastard. Just like your buddy Obama - the man who would be King.

 

[Skylar]

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)

The were no federal judges or a federal judiciary under the articles of confederation. It was one of the most severe problems regarding the articles, as disputes between states could be resolved, with each state interpreting federal law as they saw fit.

I don't know that the 'out of a hat' method has ever been used successfully.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

It would take an amendment to the constitution to reform the Supreme Court, and congress can't even pass a budget.


This is the height of ignorance, not to mention undemocratic and un-American. It's eleven un-elected anointed rulers for life, deciding what is constitutional and what isn't.

When they made money speech and corporations people, they should have been committed to the funny farm.

Actually it's 9 not 11, so who's speaking form a position of ignorance?

Ouch! you got me! What a great excuse to throw the baby out with the bath water. I'm sure you loved the SCOTUS anointing Shrub King of the U.S. But you probably resent Obama being the "decider" now, huh.

Uh...hello? The voters thru the Electoral College "anointed" President Bush. I can't believe you libs are still butt hurt over his decisive election.

 

[nodoginnafight]

And the Constitution allows for amendments that could easily reform the SC back to its intended purpose...which it has FAR exceed.

Proposal - An Amendment that basically imposes:

• SC justice term limits
• Ability for a 3/5 vote from the House and Senate to override a majority opinion without being subject to Presidential veto
• Ability for 3/5 vote of the state legislatures to override a majority opinion

One only need to look a decisions like Marbury v Madison, Dred Scott V Sandford, Wickard v Filburn, Plessy v Ferguson, Korematsu v US, and many others to see that we need a remedy against a tyrannous and all powerful SC.

Horrible idea imho.
How do we protect our Constitutional rights when a majority in a single state can revoke those rights?

Not really well thought out imho.

It is a horrible idea, not just in your opinion, but as a matter of fact.

You're also correct that our rights are not subject to 'majority rule,' that in our Constitutional Republic one is subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly.

And men are incapable of writing a perfect Constitution as well. HOWEVER, none of our three branches are perfect. But IMHO SCOTUS is the least broken branch.

 

[dcraelin]

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)

The were no federal judges or a federal judiciary under the articles of confederation. It was one of the most severe problems regarding the articles, as disputes between states could be resolved, with each state interpreting federal law as they saw fit.

I don't know that the 'out of a hat' method has ever been used successfully.

There were no PERMANENT federal judges, but there was the system I outlined above. My proposal is to combine the two systems in a way. Still have a permanent judiciary but the last part of the selection process would be random. This wouldnt be pure "out of the hat".

also need some sort of mandatory retirement as this story

Argentine mess will test 84-year-old Judge Griesa | New York Post
http://nypost.com/2014/07/26/argentine-mess-will-test-84-year-old-judge-griesa/

attests to. It also shows undue influence of the financial sector on the judiciary.