- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why is the the appointment to the Supreme Court a lifetime appointment?
Posted on 3/26/14 at 5:49 pm to PrimeTime Money
Posted on 3/26/14 at 5:49 pm to PrimeTime Money
I am going to lightly put on my anarchist party hat and say that the whole idea of an arm of the Federal government deciding cases involving the Federal government is bogus.
0
Posted on 3/27/14 at 12:37 am to PrimeTime Money
quote:
The whole idea of the American style of government is checks and balances.
So why in the world can supreme court justices serve for life?
To insulate them from politics.
Though it would seem to me that you could appoint them for an X year term and only allow them to serve one in their life and it would accomplish the same purpose.
This post was edited on 3/27/14 at 12:39 am
Posted on 3/27/14 at 4:20 am to PrimeTime Money
Personally I think it would be logical for a Supreme Court Justice to have some limit on their term. Something suitably long like 20+ years would seem reasonable. That is five plus presidential terms after all.
The best argument for doing this is to encourage the nomination of better qualified justices instead of just trying to nominate a 40 or 50 something with no record that you can sneak through the confirmation hearings. Retired justices with something left to give also have value to our society and they usually don't get to show that because they are so concerned with timing their retirements to control what type of candidate will take their spot.
The best argument for doing this is to encourage the nomination of better qualified justices instead of just trying to nominate a 40 or 50 something with no record that you can sneak through the confirmation hearings. Retired justices with something left to give also have value to our society and they usually don't get to show that because they are so concerned with timing their retirements to control what type of candidate will take their spot.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 7:29 am to TROLA
quote:
It's allows the justices a freedom to interpret the law according to the constitution without fear of removal.
Or in John Roberts case, gives the freedom to misinterpret/reclassify what was clearly argued as a penalty as instead a tax solely for the purpose of...for the purpose of... crap! why did he do this?
Posted on 3/27/14 at 7:44 am to molsusports
Problem with terms is that means that appointments would invariably start to be entwined with election cycles. That combination would lead to defacto votes on court members as well POTUS.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News