Should Supreme Court Judges Be Popularly Elected?

[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?

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

UM...OK? is that what the voices in your head told you Jake because I didn't. In fact, I say any Federal government employee being the check on Federal power is preposterous, that's a non check, as the Supreme Court continues to demonstrate.

But as for your point, the Constitution doesn't give it to the courts either, so how is it you reject one and back the other where it's not stated either way?

I think the States should have the say. Power divided is power checked.

 

[mudwhistle]

Elections have consequences.

If Obama puts Holder on the SCOTUS he would be the first serving justice that just might be indicted for criminal conspiracy.

 

[mudwhistle]

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 intent was to insulate them from politician influences.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Elections have consequences.

If Obama puts Holder on the SCOTUS he would be the first serving justice that just might be indicted for criminal conspiracy.

he would never make it to the bench

he has just way too much baggage

+ he would decline the invite

not enough cashola for his taste

 

[bodecea]

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.

The Founders were supremely more intelligent than you. We do NOT want judges beholding to the popular thing of the moment.

 

[mdk]

No, absolutely not. This is a terrible idea for the myriad of reasons already explained in this thread. Having the SC justice beholden to the electorate and politics would destroy the institution.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

The Founders were supremely more intelligent than you. We do NOT want judges beholding to the popular thing of the moment.

Yes, just being a Democrat makes one extremely intelligent, highly intellectual, and light years ahead of every or other schmuck in America.

 

[Iceweasel]

There have been numerous additions and tweaks to the Constitution over the years and this is one that needs it as well. The average lifespan in 1776 was about 35. Now it's around 72 and getting longer. Term limits are long overdue, maybe 10 years IMO.

Electing them like American Idol would be worse than what we have now but I'd like the appointments to be less political somehow. Maybe a 50/50 panel to decide.

 

[regent]

If by chance the Constitution were changed and the Court was elected by the people they should put a clause in the Amendment that the judge elected should have a degree from an accredited law school.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If by chance the Constitution were changed and the Court was elected by the people they should put a clause in the Amendment that the judge elected should have a degree from an accredited law school.

Is there a rash of Federal Judges or Supreme Court Justices being appointed who are not law school graduates?


>>>>

 

[regent]

If by chance the Constitution were changed and the Court was elected by the people they should put a clause in the Amendment that the judge elected should have a degree from an accredited law school.

Is there a rash of Federal Judges or Supreme Court Justices being appointed who are not law school graduates?


>>>>

If people elect it will soon turn into just another position for politicians, and what law requirements does the Constitution now require for members of the Supreme Court?

 

[WorldWatcher]

If by chance the Constitution were changed and the Court was elected by the people they should put a clause in the Amendment that the judge elected should have a degree from an accredited law school.

Is there a rash of Federal Judges or Supreme Court Justices being appointed who are not law school graduates?


>>>>

If people elect it will soon turn into just another position for politicians, and what law requirements does the Constitution now require for members of the Supreme Court?

Ahhhhh - I see now what you meant.


>>>>>

 

[candycorn]

No.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

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 intent was to insulate them from politician influences.

It didn't work. Whenever you give a govt official a lifetime job, he's gonna take bribes. All federal judges do.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

No, absolutely not. This is a terrible idea for the myriad of reasons already explained in this thread. Having the SC justice beholden to the electorate and politics would destroy the institution.

The board notes that you oppose democracy and want govt officials free to ignore the will of the public.

 

[Iceweasel]

Is there a rash of Federal Judges or Supreme Court Justices being appointed who are not law school graduates?

I don't know about rash but it isn't required.

Frequently Asked Questions - Supreme Court of the United States
Are there qualifications to be a Justice? Do you have to be a lawyer or attend law school to be a Supreme Court Justice?
The Constitution does not specify qualifications for Justices such as age, education, profession, or native-born citizenship. A Justice does not have to be a lawyer or a law school graduate, but all Justices have been trained in the law. Many of the 18th and 19th century Justices studied law under a mentor because there were few law schools in the country.

• The last Justice to be appointed who did not attend any law school was James F. Byrnes (1941-1942). He did not graduate from high school and taught himself law, passing the bar at the age of 23.
• Robert H. Jackson (1941-1954). While Jackson did not attend an undergraduate college, he did study law at Albany Law School in New York. At the time of his graduation, Jackson was only twenty years old and one of the requirements for a law degree was that students must be twenty-one years old. Thus rather than a law degree, Jackson was awarded with a "diploma of graduation." Twenty-nine years later, Albany Law School belatedly presented Jackson with a law degree noting his original graduating class of 1912.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

If by chance the Constitution were changed and the Court was elected by the people they should put a clause in the Amendment that the judge elected should have a degree from an accredited law school.

Most have been lawyers but they don't act like lawyers. They seldom use legal arguments anymore. They decide cases on whim or bribery. THINK

 

[Uncensored2008]

You offer no support for the claim that Obama is trying to force the Marxist **** out. Further, the claim that he would nominate Holder is laughable. Even the democrats would not confirm Obama's Shock Collar. Holder is a criminal, even the dims know this.

 

[Iceweasel]

Most have been lawyers but they don't act like lawyers. They seldom use legal arguments anymore. They decide cases on whim or bribery. THINK

I think the evidence is in that they tend to decide Constitutional matters based on political ideology. They don't need to be bribed. The main difference is that conservatives tend to be more strict in their interpretations, i. e., what does it say and mean? And liberals tend to be more 'living breathing' interpreters deciding what's best for our own good, a hallmark of liberalism.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's already there in the hands of state legislatures. They just don't do it. The constitution never explicitly says who has authority to decide if a law is constitutional - so by the tenth amendment, the states have it.

Nonsense.

States have fully exercised the 10th - with the federal government crushing them every time. Homosexual marriage is a case in point. 35 states have explicitly banned it, only to have unelected federal judges overrule them.