Should Supreme Court Judges Be Popularly Elected?

[rightwinger]

no

The board notes that, like all liberals, you hate democracy.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper

That is why we need judges

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

Turn the Supreme Court into another group of politicians whose primary concern is running for reelection?

No thank you.


*******************************************************

On the other hand if I was writing the rules...:

1. Justices would be appointed for 12-year periods.

2. Justices are divided into three groups and in sequence (of 4-years) each cohort must be reconfirmed in the Senate for an additional 12-year term. If a Justice retires, resigns, dies, or is otherwise unable to perform their duties do to medical infirmity, then a replacement Justice is nominated and approved to fill the remainder of that Justices cohort term and then must be reconfirmed with the rest of the cohort.

3. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the Justice with the most seniority as a Supreme Court Justice. In the event two or more Justices have the same seniority, then their date as a lower court Federal Judge will determine who performs the duties of Chief Justice. If dates of seniority do not clearly identify the Chief Justice, then - and only then - will the President nominate a replacement Justice to perform those duties.

4. Nomination to the Supreme Court must be voted on within 90 Senate Session days of the official date the nomination was received by the Senate. Nominees to the Supreme Court cannot be filibustered and if the Senate fails to perform an up or down vote within the 90-day window then the nominee will be considered approved and will be sworn into the court.​

>>>>

 

[Care4all]

Do you really believe you could get a Constitutional Amendment passed with 2/3's of the House and 2/3's of the Senate and 2/3's of the Individual States voting Yes, to change the constitution for this 'bright idea' of yours?

According to the Constitution it IS THE PRESIDENT that appoints Supreme Court Justices and it is the Senate that gives advice and consent to them, and only 51% of the Senators voting yes, to have them appointed.

The reason there are no term limits and lifetime appointments is suppose to PROTECT us from Justices voting with their "political party".....there is no outside pressure for them to vote with a 'party' or vote with the President who appointed them because once they are appointed, they are appointed for life, so they can just rule and vote, with their conscience and within the boundaries of the Constitution...

And sure, there are plenty of their decisions that seemed very wrong to me....

Like letting the government take away people's property to give to private businesses in Kelo v New London,

and in this stupid, stupid, decision to allow even foreign governments and foreign people to contribute towards the elections of our Representation by allowing these PACS that say they are for Charity, the 501c4's, WHEN THEY ARE NOT primarily for charity but are primarily for political purposes, and allowing those who donate to these political groups to hold their donors SILENT, invisible, in darkness, so we don;t know who the hell is electing our officials through their spending.....AND on top of that, there being no SUNSHINE as to who these political donors are....they GET A TAX write off for their donation in the guise that it is a charity, with the Citizen's United case.... I mean..... HOLY CRAP!!!!

And then on top of that, there was Bush V Gore that they should have never stuck themselves in to because the Constitution says it is the individual STATES that handle ALL voting and elections INCLUDING FEDERAL elections....and then tried to cover their asses by saying this was just a one time decision and it could not be used as precedence in any other case....

So, yes, the Supreme Court has made some pretty damn unconstitutional decisions in my book, and those above aren't even the tip of the iceberg, again, imo.....

But, Congress could, if they would get off their butts and do it, correct a lot of the bad supreme court decisions....
Congress could clarify laws, so that the supreme court's ruling is moot....it's being done in some
States where they disagreed with the Supreme's decisions like with Kilo vs New London....they wrote in to their own constitutions or their own state laws that eminent domain could not be used by a government to take away the citizen's property if it was to go to private businesses, just for the purpose of collecting more in taxes from the private businesses vs collecting more in taxes from the individual property owners....so they have made null and void the Supreme courts decision on Kelo vs New London.

Congress can clarify the rules on 501c4's or just drop it all together....

So, there ARE checks and balances to what the Supreme Court has done.... we just have lazy ass congress critters or corrupt congress critters, that are stopping that from happening....

So then it is up to us, to do due diligence, to VOTE THOSE SUCKERS out!!!! But we are lazy too, and corrupt too, in a way..... sigh............

--------------------------------------------------

Replacing Ginsburg with Holder won't change the Republican leaning majority of the Supreme court Justices, it would just keep it the same...5 republican, and 4 Democratic presidential appointed justices, right?

So this is no big deal for either side if it does take place....

Now if a Republican appointed Justice were retiring and Holder were to replace that Justice, THEN AND ONLY THEN would it be a big deal.

 

[kaz]

Absolutely not. The Supreme Court remains the only remaining check to the abuse of power demonstrated by the President and Congress. To politicize the court or adopt limit terms is a step toward compromising the intent of the founders in the preservation of our Constitutional rights.
As for EH ascending to the court, it would require confronting his past testimony before Congress and potential perjury charges. It would be very unlikely, considering his record, he could gain the necessary votes required.

So you want the most Constitutionally abusive branch to check the other two? How does that make sense?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

The court is charged to interpret the constitutionality of law, the key word is interpret. .

Charged? Where does the constitution say the Supreme Court has authority to interpret the constitution.

And even if we grant them that authority, what part of the constitution did the judges "interpret" when they legalized abortion or forced taxpayers to provide free k-12 for illegals.???????? Fact is judges do not interpret the constitution - they rewrite it and call it an interpretation. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Do you really believe you could get a Constitutional Amendment passed with 2/3's of the House and 2/3's of the Senate and 2/3's of the Individual States voting Yes, to change the constitution for this 'bright idea' of yours?l.

Just once why don't you surprise us and do some research.? Fact is 3/4 of the states have to approve the amendment for it to become part of the constitution.

 

[Care4all]

Do you really believe you could get a Constitutional Amendment passed with 2/3's of the House and 2/3's of the Senate and 2/3's of the Individual States voting Yes, to change the constitution for this 'bright idea' of yours?l.

Just once why don't you surprise us and do some research.? Fact is 3/4 of the states have to approve the amendment for it to become part of the constitution.

3/4's instead of my 2/3's....WHATEVER....

Just once, why don't YOU answer my question for a change instead of knit picking? what you proposed would take a constitutional amendment, with super duper majorities to get it passed, (2/3's for congress and 3/4's for the States, you say).... Do YOU believe the constitution could be amended for this bright idea of yours?

So, dearest one....answer my question.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Absolutely not. The Supreme Court remains the only remaining check to the abuse of power demonstrated by the President and Congress. To politicize the court or adopt limit terms is a step toward compromising the intent of the founders in the preservation of our Constitutional rights.
As for EH ascending to the court, it would require confronting his past testimony before Congress and potential perjury charges. It would be very unlikely, considering his record, he could gain the necessary votes required.

So you want the most Constitutionally abusive branch to check the other two? How does that make sense?

No, the Congress does not have that power, so no you make no sense.

 

[JakeStarkey]

[

The court is charged to interpret the constitutionality of law, the key word is interpret. .

Charged? Where does the constitution say the Supreme Court has authority to interpret the constitution.

And even if we grant them that authority, what part of the constitution did the judges "interpret" when they legalized abortion or forced taxpayers to provide free k-12 for illegals.???????? Fact is judges do not interpret the constitution - they rewrite it and call it an interpretation. THINK

Read Article III, please, for the first time.

 

[blackhawk]

No they shouldn't be elected but I also don't think they should be there basically for life either.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

No they shouldn't be elected. hell I don't want most of our population voting for the offices that ARE elected offices, let alone adding new votes for them to fuck up.

But they SHOULD have a mandatory retirement age. I'm sorry but some old man hanging onto his death bed waiting for a liberal or conservative POTUS to get elected shouldn't happen.

Four states have mandatory retirement for their state supreme court justices at age 70. That would be good with SCOTUS to.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Unfortunately, we as human being have our biases.
This includes Justices of SCOTUS.
In theory, those that serve are intended to be the most brilliant of legal minds available. We would place in them our trust to adhere to the cannons as well as maintaining in their minds, the vision of Justitia as their guide.
I cannot agree with the notion of elected SCOTUS justices.
However, the confirmation process must be adjusted. I believe that a super majority of Senators should be required for confirmation. I also believe a limit on years of service should be discussed and implemented.
I do not support "packing" of the Court with Justices of a certain ideology.
I also believe that POTUS be barred from nominating a new member for SCOTUS within 730 days( 2 years) of the end of their second term.
One other issue. The US Senate should be barred from using the filibuster as a means to prevent a confirmation vote from going to the Floor

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Looks like obozo is trying to force ginsberg out so he can put super-racist Eric Hitler on the court where he will likely serve for 30 years with no oversight. Supreme Court judges have given themselves final say on every issue and have also given themselves authority to write laws. Constitution says they can't do it but they do it.

They run the country and they should come up for election every 6 years.

Nonsense.


Judges aren't 'writing laws,' the notion is ignorant idiocy, as is the notion of Supreme Court justices being subject to 'elections.' It would completely destroy the rule of law and end our Constitutional Republic.


That the Constitution and its case law prohibit you and others on the hateful right from seeking to deny citizens their civil liberties simply because you disapprove of who they are or what they do is not 'justification' to end the rule of law, throw out the Republic, and subject citizens to the tyranny of the majority.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Do you really believe you could get a Constitutional Amendment passed with 2/3's of the House and 2/3's of the Senate and 2/3's of the Individual States voting Yes, to change the constitution for this 'bright idea' of yours?

According to the Constitution it IS THE PRESIDENT that appoints Supreme Court Justices and it is the Senate that gives advice and consent to them, and only 51% of the Senators voting yes, to have them appointed.

The reason there are no term limits and lifetime appointments is suppose to PROTECT us from Justices voting with their "political party".....there is no outside pressure for them to vote with a 'party' or vote with the President who appointed them because once they are appointed, they are appointed for life, so they can just rule and vote, with their conscience and within the boundaries of the Constitution...

And sure, there are plenty of their decisions that seemed very wrong to me....

Like letting the government take away people's property to give to private businesses in Kelo v New London,

and in this stupid, stupid, decision to allow even foreign governments and foreign people to contribute towards the elections of our Representation by allowing these PACS that say they are for Charity, the 501c4's, WHEN THEY ARE NOT primarily for charity but are primarily for political purposes, and allowing those who donate to these political groups to hold their donors SILENT, invisible, in darkness, so we don;t know who the hell is electing our officials through their spending.....AND on top of that, there being no SUNSHINE as to who these political donors are....they GET A TAX write off for their donation in the guise that it is a charity, with the Citizen's United case.... I mean..... HOLY CRAP!!!!

And then on top of that, there was Bush V Gore that they should have never stuck themselves in to because the Constitution says it is the individual STATES that handle ALL voting and elections INCLUDING FEDERAL elections....and then tried to cover their asses by saying this was just a one time decision and it could not be used as precedence in any other case....

So, yes, the Supreme Court has made some pretty damn unconstitutional decisions in my book, and those above aren't even the tip of the iceberg, again, imo.....

But, Congress could, if they would get off their butts and do it, correct a lot of the bad supreme court decisions....
Congress could clarify laws, so that the supreme court's ruling is moot....it's being done in some
States where they disagreed with the Supreme's decisions like with Kilo vs New London....they wrote in to their own constitutions or their own state laws that eminent domain could not be used by a government to take away the citizen's property if it was to go to private businesses, just for the purpose of collecting more in taxes from the private businesses vs collecting more in taxes from the individual property owners....so they have made null and void the Supreme courts decision on Kelo vs New London.

Congress can clarify the rules on 501c4's or just drop it all together....

So, there ARE checks and balances to what the Supreme Court has done.... we just have lazy ass congress critters or corrupt congress critters, that are stopping that from happening....

So then it is up to us, to do due diligence, to VOTE THOSE SUCKERS out!!!! But we are lazy too, and corrupt too, in a way..... sigh............

--------------------------------------------------

Replacing Ginsburg with Holder won't change the Republican leaning majority of the Supreme court Justices, it would just keep it the same...5 republican, and 4 Democratic presidential appointed justices, right?

So this is no big deal for either side if it does take place....

Now if a Republican appointed Justice were retiring and Holder were to replace that Justice, THEN AND ONLY THEN would it be a big deal.

The POTUS does NOT "appoint" SCOTUS member. The POTUS submits a 'nominee'...The Senate is charged with the duty of confirming or not confirming the niminee.
Justices do not "rule"..They render legal opinions. The Members then vote on a submitted opinion.
On Bush v Gore, all legal remedies had been exhausted. Surely SCOTUS was loathe to intervene. However, the process of duly electing officials was at an interminable standstill. Simply put, the country needed to close the issue and move forward. Besides, it was Lieberman who stated numerous times that he believed the election should be decided by the courts.
What you believe to be unconstitutional is not at all. You simply disagree on ideological grounds. That is your opinion.
And of course the SCOTUS are not GOP or democrat. Those are political parties.

 

[Silhouette]

Looks like obozo is trying to force ginsberg out so he can put super-racist Eric Hitler on the court where he will likely serve for 30 years with no oversight. Supreme Court judges have given themselves final say on every issue and have also given themselves authority to write laws. Constitution says they can't do it but they do it.

They run the country and they should come up for election every 6 years.

If the GOP allowed Kim Jung Holder to be affirmed as a SCOTUS Justice, I'll eat my hat.

But the topic of this thread is a good one. I think the reasoning against such a move would be that "campaigning" for Supreme Court Justice might make them look a bit...slanted and biased at the outset. "If you elect me Justice, I promise I'll pass all your gay agenda stuff". Well, that certainly would be Holder's campaign promise..

 

[Rikurzhen]

The problem isn't with the Supreme Court so any reforms on that branch will simply not produce the desired results.

What we need is an elected King to sit over top of everyone for a 30 year term and align his interests with the interests of the nation. Right now a President comes in, takes the credit card and goes on a binge and then leaves the bills for the next President. A King is the "owner" a country so he has more incentive to manage the affairs so that the asset value of society increases.

There is no branch of government which is focused on the decade long or century long horizon. That's the problem at the heart of what's going wrong - short term thinking on all sorts of issues and no damn concern for the long term consequences for those consequences impose no costs on short-term decision making.

Look at Obama siphoning off billions upon billions to his ghetto community activist friends. If he had to deal with the consequences of that frivolous spending for the next 30 years would he make the same spending decision? Probably not.

We need someone with limited power but long tenure to sit on top of the political process who is rewarded in some fashion for the long term improvements he shepherded in "His Domain."

 

[bripat9643]

Looks like obozo is trying to force ginsberg out so he can put super-racist Eric Hitler on the court where he will likely serve for 30 years with no oversight. Supreme Court judges have given themselves final say on every issue and have also given themselves authority to write laws. Constitution says they can't do it but they do it.

They run the country and they should come up for election every 6 years.

Nope, but the states should be able to override any Supreme Court decision.

 

[Care4all]

Do you really believe you could get a Constitutional Amendment passed with 2/3's of the House and 2/3's of the Senate and 2/3's of the Individual States voting Yes, to change the constitution for this 'bright idea' of yours?

According to the Constitution it IS THE PRESIDENT that appoints Supreme Court Justices and it is the Senate that gives advice and consent to them, and only 51% of the Senators voting yes, to have them appointed.

The reason there are no term limits and lifetime appointments is suppose to PROTECT us from Justices voting with their "political party".....there is no outside pressure for them to vote with a 'party' or vote with the President who appointed them because once they are appointed, they are appointed for life, so they can just rule and vote, with their conscience and within the boundaries of the Constitution...

And sure, there are plenty of their decisions that seemed very wrong to me....

Like letting the government take away people's property to give to private businesses in Kelo v New London,

and in this stupid, stupid, decision to allow even foreign governments and foreign people to contribute towards the elections of our Representation by allowing these PACS that say they are for Charity, the 501c4's, WHEN THEY ARE NOT primarily for charity but are primarily for political purposes, and allowing those who donate to these political groups to hold their donors SILENT, invisible, in darkness, so we don;t know who the hell is electing our officials through their spending.....AND on top of that, there being no SUNSHINE as to who these political donors are....they GET A TAX write off for their donation in the guise that it is a charity, with the Citizen's United case.... I mean..... HOLY CRAP!!!!

And then on top of that, there was Bush V Gore that they should have never stuck themselves in to because the Constitution says it is the individual STATES that handle ALL voting and elections INCLUDING FEDERAL elections....and then tried to cover their asses by saying this was just a one time decision and it could not be used as precedence in any other case....

So, yes, the Supreme Court has made some pretty damn unconstitutional decisions in my book, and those above aren't even the tip of the iceberg, again, imo.....

But, Congress could, if they would get off their butts and do it, correct a lot of the bad supreme court decisions....
Congress could clarify laws, so that the supreme court's ruling is moot....it's being done in some
States where they disagreed with the Supreme's decisions like with Kilo vs New London....they wrote in to their own constitutions or their own state laws that eminent domain could not be used by a government to take away the citizen's property if it was to go to private businesses, just for the purpose of collecting more in taxes from the private businesses vs collecting more in taxes from the individual property owners....so they have made null and void the Supreme courts decision on Kelo vs New London.

Congress can clarify the rules on 501c4's or just drop it all together....

So, there ARE checks and balances to what the Supreme Court has done.... we just have lazy ass congress critters or corrupt congress critters, that are stopping that from happening....

So then it is up to us, to do due diligence, to VOTE THOSE SUCKERS out!!!! But we are lazy too, and corrupt too, in a way..... sigh............

--------------------------------------------------

Replacing Ginsburg with Holder won't change the Republican leaning majority of the Supreme court Justices, it would just keep it the same...5 republican, and 4 Democratic presidential appointed justices, right?

So this is no big deal for either side if it does take place....

Now if a Republican appointed Justice were retiring and Holder were to replace that Justice, THEN AND ONLY THEN would it be a big deal.

The POTUS does NOT "appoint" SCOTUS member. The POTUS submits a 'nominee'...The Senate is charged with the duty of confirming or not confirming the niminee.
Justices do not "rule"..They render legal opinions. The Members then vote on a submitted opinion.
On Bush v Gore, all legal remedies had been exhausted. Surely SCOTUS was loathe to intervene. However, the process of duly electing officials was at an interminable standstill. Simply put, the country needed to close the issue and move forward. Besides, it was Lieberman who stated numerous times that he believed the election should be decided by the courts.
What you believe to be unconstitutional is not at all. You simply disagree on ideological grounds. That is your opinion.
And of course the SCOTUS are not GOP or democrat. Those are political parties.

Please don't rewrite history from your political stance....the SC did not have to get involved.....with State duties and elections....procedures were in place to handle the situation.....there was a couple of weeks left for the state to resolve its problems for its election before the electoral college vote of all states was due to be certified....and even then, if Fla didn't make it in time, then procedure was in place to handle that circumstance as well....it's you that is trying to justify the SC involvement for political purpose.

Right the SC is not gop or dnc....they are APPOINTED by a president that belongs to a party...the Senate advises and consents or not to the Presidents APPOINTMENT.

And correct, they interpret the constitutionality of laws....they don't write law.

 

[Care4all]

Unfortunately, we as human being have our biases.
This includes Justices of SCOTUS.
In theory, those that serve are intended to be the most brilliant of legal minds available. We would place in them our trust to adhere to the cannons as well as maintaining in their minds, the vision of Justitia as their guide.
I cannot agree with the notion of elected SCOTUS justices.
However, the confirmation process must be adjusted. I believe that a super majority of Senators should be required for confirmation. I also believe a limit on years of service should be discussed and implemented.
I do not support "packing" of the Court with Justices of a certain ideology.
I also believe that POTUS be barred from nominating a new member for SCOTUS within 730 days( 2 years) of the end of their second term.
One other issue. The US Senate should be barred from using the filibuster as a means to prevent a confirmation vote from going to the Floor

The constitution is specific on when a super majority vote is required...or rather a vote greater than a majority such as 2/3s vote for treaties, for war....

 

[Politico]

Why did our founding fathers give the judges lifetime tenure? They never foresaw what we have today with the SCOTUS effectively acting as dictator. Congress should have curbed their power grab long ago, but they don't care.

The founding fathers were clear why they set it up that way. So either you are ignorant on the subject and have no business discussing it. Or you are trolling. Which is it?