Should Supreme Court Justices have life long appointments?

[2aguy]

Democrats shouldn't be allowed to choose justices.

Oh, I agree....without them dumb ass democrats on the bench, white girls and white boys would still be in segregated schools, women would be having babies that they don't want, white girls wouldn't be able to marry black men and on and on and on. So I agree

Republicans are the ones who freed the slaves and Republicans are the ones who fought for civil rights.
Democrats are the ones who tried to filibuster both.

Put it this way, if a republican freed the slaves, its because they owned a few and if any of these losers fought for civil rights, then they're indian givers, cause they show trying to take em back.

You do realize that the Republicans did fight the major civil rights battles...right...and the democrats used lynching, bombs, dogs, fire hoses and police batons to stop them...right?

southern democrats. and they're all republicans now so why do wingers keep bringing that up. lincoln is rolling over in his grave at what you'e done to his party.

Wrong...the racists stayed democrats...the non racists stopped being democrats....bill clinton's best freind and political mentor..stayed a democrat...and was a racist, j. william fulbright......obama.....jeremiah wright stayed a democrat and is a rabid racist....as is obama.......

 

[jillian]

I believe there should not be lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, I think there should be a mandatory retirement age, say 65 years old and you are out.

so you hate the constitution and want to upset the ability of the supreme court to check the actions of the executive and legislative branches which is their job.

Only a lefty could get that from that post.......Reality Dyslexia.....

only a rightwingnut can defend the BS spewed by other rightwingnuts. now quiet, idiot.

 

[jillian]

Oh, I agree....without them dumb ass democrats on the bench, white girls and white boys would still be in segregated schools, women would be having babies that they don't want, white girls wouldn't be able to marry black men and on and on and on. So I agree

Republicans are the ones who freed the slaves and Republicans are the ones who fought for civil rights.
Democrats are the ones who tried to filibuster both.

Put it this way, if a republican freed the slaves, its because they owned a few and if any of these losers fought for civil rights, then they're indian givers, cause they show trying to take em back.

You do realize that the Republicans did fight the major civil rights battles...right...and the democrats used lynching, bombs, dogs, fire hoses and police batons to stop them...right?

southern democrats. and they're all republicans now so why do wingers keep bringing that up. lincoln is rolling over in his grave at what you'e done to his party.

Wrong...the racists stayed democrats...the non racists stopped being democrats....bill clinton's best freind and political mentor..stayed a democrat...and was a racist, j. william fulbright......obama.....jeremiah wright stayed a democrat and is a rabid racist....as is obama.......

what were you saying about reality dyslexia?

the irony is just too thick.

now be quiet, wacko.

 

[Disir]

Judges should be appointed for life. This should not be political football and especially with the Supreme Court Justices.

They are 9 politically appointed lawyers, appointed by one politician and approved by a majority of the politicians in the Senate, course it is political.

The name of the game by appointing them for life is to remove them from the political crap.
That's the point.

I hear a lot of talking about the Constitution and I'm reading a lot of take the Constitution and throw it in the toilet because we didn't get our way. That's telling.

 

[Slyhunter]

Republicans are the ones who freed the slaves and Republicans are the ones who fought for civil rights.
Democrats are the ones who tried to filibuster both.

Put it this way, if a republican freed the slaves, its because they owned a few and if any of these losers fought for civil rights, then they're indian givers, cause they show trying to take em back.

You do realize that the Republicans did fight the major civil rights battles...right...and the democrats used lynching, bombs, dogs, fire hoses and police batons to stop them...right?

southern democrats. and they're all republicans now so why do wingers keep bringing that up. lincoln is rolling over in his grave at what you'e done to his party.

Wrong...the racists stayed democrats...the non racists stopped being democrats....bill clinton's best freind and political mentor..stayed a democrat...and was a racist, j. william fulbright......obama.....jeremiah wright stayed a democrat and is a rabid racist....as is obama.......

what were you saying about reality dyslexia?

the irony is just too thick.

now be quiet, wacko.

Byrd member of the KKK, Gore, Sr. in charge of filibustering civil rights. They didn't become Republican.

 

[tigerred59]

Democrats shouldn't be allowed to choose justices.

Oh, I agree....without them dumb ass democrats on the bench, white girls and white boys would still be in segregated schools, women would be having babies that they don't want, white girls wouldn't be able to marry black men and on and on and on. So I agree

Republicans are the ones who freed the slaves and Republicans are the ones who fought for civil rights.
Democrats are the ones who tried to filibuster both.

Put it this way, if a republican freed the slaves, its because they owned a few and if any of these losers fought for civil rights, then they're indian givers, cause they show trying to take em back.

Do you actually study history......the democrats fought to keep the slaves, created jim crow laws and democrats created the kkk....all in order to fight republicans and keep blacks inferior to democrats.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, but it this way, they've made up for it....now wake me when you have something to add to the 21st century.

 

[2aguy]

Democrats shouldn't be allowed to choose justices.

Oh, I agree....without them dumb ass democrats on the bench, white girls and white boys would still be in segregated schools, women would be having babies that they don't want, white girls wouldn't be able to marry black men and on and on and on. So I agree

Republicans are the ones who freed the slaves and Republicans are the ones who fought for civil rights.
Democrats are the ones who tried to filibuster both.

Put it this way, if a republican freed the slaves, its because they owned a few and if any of these losers fought for civil rights, then they're indian givers, cause they show trying to take em back.

Do you actually study history......the democrats fought to keep the slaves, created jim crow laws and democrats created the kkk....all in order to fight republicans and keep blacks inferior to democrats.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, but it this way, they've made up for it....now wake me when you have something to add to the 21st century.

How did they make up for it...the democrats pretended to care about civil rights at the time they realized they couldn't murder enough blacks to keep them from voting....so they decided to buy their votes with the Great Society hand outs.......

How has the fate of blacks in America improved since they joined the party of the slave masters of their ancestors....?

 

[tigerred59]

Democrats shouldn't be allowed to choose justices.

Oh, I agree....without them dumb ass democrats on the bench, white girls and white boys would still be in segregated schools, women would be having babies that they don't want, white girls wouldn't be able to marry black men and on and on and on. So I agree

Republicans are the ones who freed the slaves and Republicans are the ones who fought for civil rights.
Democrats are the ones who tried to filibuster both.

Put it this way, if a republican freed the slaves, its because they owned a few and if any of these losers fought for civil rights, then they're indian givers, cause they show trying to take em back.

You do realize that the Republicans did fight the major civil rights battles...right...and the democrats used lynching, bombs, dogs, fire hoses and police batons to stop them...right?

southern democrats. and they're all republicans now so why do wingers keep bringing that up. lincoln is rolling over in his grave at what you'e done to his party.

The one thing one must do in life, is put things in prospective. The 60's no matter what party affiliation you had, was for segregation. 200 years of segregation does not change over night and also understand, the voters of this era were mostly WHITE!! Both parties had to cater to the will of their base and both bases were for segregation, for black exclusions. It was the federal arm of the law that changed all that and it was through the COURTS. Not through conservative nor liberal ideology but through constitutional arguments by lawyers on both side.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I believe there should not be lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, I think there should be a mandatory retirement age, say 65 years old and you are out.

FDR suggested the same thing and got sternly rebuffed by congress and the people.

He was going to put more lefty justices on the court to do his bidding......

Right. He had political motives too. Are political motives only noble when the politics are yours?

Yes....we support actually using the Constitution to make decisions...the left sees the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as blocks to enacting their social change......so yes...we have the more noble purpose. If people want the Constitution changed there is an amendment process, the left doesn't want to take the time and effort to do that when one judge can just change it in a ruling.

Indeed. The left firmly believes that the Constitution, a document that built the most perfect nation on the face of the earth, a document that has helped every nation on the earth, is nothing more than a hindrance to their communist utopia.

The thing that always makes me scratch my head with these losers is this: Cuba, Venezula, the Soviet Union, Red China, El Salvador, these examples of "utopian" society - all abject failures. But somehow, these clowns would subject themselves to tyranny, in the hopes of "getting even" with a country they deem as "bad".

Jesus folks! I spent years in the Soviet Union. I saw, firsthand, what the "utopian" society was all about. I saw people starve. I saw people simply disappear. Is that REALLY what you moronic fools REALLY desire?

God help us all.....

 

[tigerred59]

Oh, I agree....without them dumb ass democrats on the bench, white girls and white boys would still be in segregated schools, women would be having babies that they don't want, white girls wouldn't be able to marry black men and on and on and on. So I agree

Republicans are the ones who freed the slaves and Republicans are the ones who fought for civil rights.
Democrats are the ones who tried to filibuster both.

Put it this way, if a republican freed the slaves, its because they owned a few and if any of these losers fought for civil rights, then they're indian givers, cause they show trying to take em back.

Do you actually study history......the democrats fought to keep the slaves, created jim crow laws and democrats created the kkk....all in order to fight republicans and keep blacks inferior to democrats.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, but it this way, they've made up for it....now wake me when you have something to add to the 21st century.

How did they make up for it...the democrats pretended to care about civil rights at the time they realized they couldn't murder enough blacks to keep them from voting....so they decided to buy their votes with the Great Society hand outs.......

How has the fate of blacks in America improved since they joined the party of the slave masters of their ancestors....?

Listen, the fate of all black people is not through the courts, nor through political party affiliation. The fate of black people is at the hands of black people and until we decide to change course in life, its no one's fault but our own. Its a choice that blacks themselves have to embrace, not parties. So no disagreement here.

 

[tigerred59]

Oh, I agree....without them dumb ass democrats on the bench, white girls and white boys would still be in segregated schools, women would be having babies that they don't want, white girls wouldn't be able to marry black men and on and on and on. So I agree

Republicans are the ones who freed the slaves and Republicans are the ones who fought for civil rights.
Democrats are the ones who tried to filibuster both.

Put it this way, if a republican freed the slaves, its because they owned a few and if any of these losers fought for civil rights, then they're indian givers, cause they show trying to take em back.

You do realize that the Republicans did fight the major civil rights battles...right...and the democrats used lynching, bombs, dogs, fire hoses and police batons to stop them...right?

southern democrats. and they're all republicans now so why do wingers keep bringing that up. lincoln is rolling over in his grave at what you'e done to his party.

Wrong...the racists stayed democrats...the non racists stopped being democrats....bill clinton's best freind and political mentor..stayed a democrat...and was a racist, j. william fulbright......obama.....jeremiah wright stayed a democrat and is a rabid racist....as is obama.......

At what point does it matter, who's a fuckin racist? Everybody, black white red green and yellow, got a fuckin story to sell on the subject. You need to get a life and get off the net....all your postings are about blacks and whites.....get a life and enjoy your black grandkids.

 

[Nosmo King]

I believe there should not be lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, I think there should be a mandatory retirement age, say 65 years old and you are out.

FDR suggested the same thing and got sternly rebuffed by congress and the people.

He was going to put more lefty justices on the court to do his bidding......

Right. He had political motives too. Are political motives only noble when the politics are yours?

Yes....we support actually using the Constitution to make decisions...the left sees the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as blocks to enacting their social change......so yes...we have the more noble purpose. If people want the Constitution changed there is an amendment process, the left doesn't want to take the time and effort to do that when one judge can just change it in a ruling.

Ah! The constitution! That's the document that spells out the terms of service for Justices of the Supreme Court. It says something about lifetime appointments, doesn't it? And there's something in there about how the President of the United States makes appointments to the federal courts, including the Supreme Court and the Senate can confirm or deny those appointments.

Where does it say the Senate can refuse that confirmation or denial on political grounds?

Ah! The constitution! When you say you would adhere to it and follow it to the letter, it's important that you do just that!

 

[the_human_being]

 

[saveliberty]

Have term limits improved the quality of Presidents?

Should we cut Presidents and Congresspersons off at 65?

The purpose of lifetime appointment was to prevent politics from influencing decisions. Presidents and Congress have made appointing Justices too political.

 

[2aguy]

I believe there should not be lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, I think there should be a mandatory retirement age, say 65 years old and you are out.

FDR suggested the same thing and got sternly rebuffed by congress and the people.

He was going to put more lefty justices on the court to do his bidding......

Right. He had political motives too. Are political motives only noble when the politics are yours?

Yes....we support actually using the Constitution to make decisions...the left sees the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as blocks to enacting their social change......so yes...we have the more noble purpose. If people want the Constitution changed there is an amendment process, the left doesn't want to take the time and effort to do that when one judge can just change it in a ruling.

Ah! The constitution! That's the document that spells out the terms of service for Justices of the Supreme Court. It says something about lifetime appointments, doesn't it? And there's something in there about how the President of the United States makes appointments to the federal courts, including the Supreme Court and the Senate can confirm or deny those appointments.

Where does it say the Senate can refuse that confirmation or denial on political grounds?

Ah! The constitution! When you say you would adhere to it and follow it to the letter, it's important that you do just that!

It does not give reasons for why the Senate should or should not confirm the nominee, and no one denies that obama can make an appointment....the Senate does not have to confirm anyone. Each Senator takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution....that would apply to appointees......they cannot appoint people who would attack the Constitution or undermine it...that would go against their oath....

 

[2aguy]

Have term limits improved the quality of Presidents?

Should we cut Presidents and Congresspersons off at 65?

The purpose of lifetime appointment was to prevent politics from influencing decisions. Presidents and Congress have made appointing Justices too political.

Term limits limit the damage any one President can do....that would also be the point of term limiting Justices...

 

[Stephanie]

NO, no one in this government, Congress or anything else should have LIFE LONG jobs. breeding ground for Bribery, corruption, politicians stacking the supreme court with evil ideologies like Obama has : should worry us all. but as we they aren't.

 

[dcraelin]

I believe there should not be lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, I think there should be a mandatory retirement age, say 65 years old and you are out.

And Ben Franklin agreed according to notes of the Constitutional Convention by Madison.


Docr FRANKLIN - It seems to have been imagined by some that the returning to the mass of the people was degrading the magistrate This he thought was contrary to republican principles. In free Governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors, sovereigns For the former therefore to return among the latter was not to degrade but to promote them And it would be imposing an unreasonable burden on them to keep them always in a State of servitude and not allow them to become again one of the Masters […]

 

[dannyboys]

I believe there should not be lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, I think there should be a mandatory retirement age, say 65 years old and you are out.

no.....10 years and then they get replaced by WHOEVER is President at the time they step down...the chief justice should be the one with the most seniority....

Nope. Not in his reality.
The writers of the Constitution explicitly made the Senate the final SGJ deciders. This was to ensure NO President could effectively take over control of the SC , thereby the entire country by only putting in his political allies.
Checks and Balances.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I believe there should not be lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, I think there should be a mandatory retirement age, say 65 years old and you are out.

no.....10 years and then they get replaced by WHOEVER is President at the time they step down...the chief justice should be the one with the most seniority....

Nope. Not in his reality.
The writers of the Constitution explicitly made the Senate the final SGJ deciders. This was to ensure NO President could effectively take over control of the SC , thereby the entire country by only putting in his political allies.
Checks and Balances.

i have no problem with what you said....i just dont believe they should be there for life...