- 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
Why is the the appointment to the Supreme Court a lifetime appointment?
Posted on 3/26/14 at 3:47 pm
Posted on 3/26/14 at 3:47 pm
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?
So why in the world can supreme court justices serve for life?
10
Posted on 3/26/14 at 3:51 pm to PrimeTime Money
It's allows the justices a freedom to interpret the law according to the constitution without fear of removal.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 3:51 pm to PrimeTime Money
The idea is to keep sitting justices from being corrupted and supposedly apolitical.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 3:52 pm to PrimeTime Money
So the president or Congress can't fire the supreme court for doing something they don't like.
It's not perfect, and there are problems with doing it that way, but the alternative is judges who are political hacks, like in Louisiana.
It's not perfect, and there are problems with doing it that way, but the alternative is judges who are political hacks, like in Louisiana.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 3:53 pm to PrimeTime Money
So Obama isn't selecting Scalia's replacement unless Scalia wants him to or he dies.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 3:56 pm to Libertyabides71
quote:
So Obama isn't selecting Scalia's replacement unless Scalia wants him to or he dies.
Scalia will go on life support before he let's Obama pick his replacement.
I read an article the other day saying that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is considering retiring this summer if it appears that the Dems will lose the Senate. That way, Obama can continue his streak of nominating far, far, far left ignorant whacko politicized nutjobs to the Supreme Court without having to worry about Senate confirmation.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 3:57 pm to PrimeTime Money
Because the Constitution says so.
Now, the rationale was to put the justices above the political fray, so that they would not be beholding to their masters to keep the bench. However, the problem is that: a) people are living a shitload longer than they used to; and, b) since FDR, federal judicial appointments have become ideological battlegrounds (this really ramped up with the Bork hearings).
Now, the rationale was to put the justices above the political fray, so that they would not be beholding to their masters to keep the bench. However, the problem is that: a) people are living a shitload longer than they used to; and, b) since FDR, federal judicial appointments have become ideological battlegrounds (this really ramped up with the Bork hearings).
Posted on 3/26/14 at 4:01 pm to udtiger
Why couldn't it be a 1-term appointment for a specified number of years?
Posted on 3/26/14 at 4:02 pm to MMauler
quote:
Scalia will go on life support before he let's Obama pick his replacement.
I read an article the other day saying that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is considering retiring this summer if it appears that the Dems will lose the Senate. That way, Obama can continue his streak of nominating far, far, far left ignorant whacko politicized nutjobs to the Supreme Court without having to worry about Senate confirmation.
Exactly, if Ginsburg doesn't retire this summer, she won't get replaced at all by a GOP Senate. Her replacement would likely come sometime in 2017 by a President Paul.
Rand Paul replacing Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy would mean further restrictions like Gonzalez on abortion. Hillary Clinton replacing Kennedy, Scalia, or Thomas would be the reversal of Heller or Citizens United.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 4:02 pm to MMauler
quote:
That way, Obama can continue his streak of nominating far, far, far left ignorant whacko politicized nutjobs to the Supreme Court without having to worry about Senate confirmation.
The democratic controlled senate has rejected two far left ignorant whackos already this year for lesser known positions like civil rights chief at the DOJ and Surgeon General pick if I'm not mistaken. Why? It's an election year where they are vulnerable and they're going to stick to safe picks.
There is no chance this senate lets a far left ignorant whacko get confirmed for the SCOTUS of all places in an election year where they are extremely vulnerable.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 4:03 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
Why couldn't it be a 1-term appointment for a specified number of years?
As a libertarian/conservative I would hate the idea of a healthy and able Scalia being replaced by Obama, a liberal would balk at an able Ginsburg replaced in 2006 by Bush (when she first got Cancer).
Posted on 3/26/14 at 4:04 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
Why couldn't it be a 1-term appointment for a specified number of years?
It could, if the Constitution were amended.
See Mark Levin's Liberty Amendments.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 4:10 pm to Libertyabides71
quote:Here is something I just made up:
As a libertarian/conservative I would hate the idea of a healthy and able Scalia being replaced by Obama, a liberal would balk at an able Ginsburg replaced in 2006 by Bush (when she first got Cancer).
What if everybody on the supreme court was replaced when a president got elected by both the new president and the highest ranking member of the other party. Party that isn't president gets 1 more pick.
For example:
Obama gets elected president in 2008. Boehner gets to choose 5 new justices. Obama gets to choose 4.
That way, there would be 1 more justice that was chosen by a Republican than a Democrat.
In theory, this would keep some of the crap presidents try to get away with unconstitutional.
When a Republican is president, there would be 1 more left-leaning justice. That could reign in the crap Republicans try to pull.
Win-win for a constitutional government.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 4:10 pm to Sentrius
quote:
The democratic controlled senate has rejected two far left ignorant whackos already this year
A reelection year.
Do you think that's a coincidence?
Why do you think Harry Reid used the nuclear option to change the rules?
And, just take a wild stab (guess) at when Harry Reid would schedule the vote on a replacement for Ruthie???
I'll give you a hint -- it will be very shortly after Tuesday, November 4, 2014 -- you know, the day of the midterm elections.
And, you can pretty much bet everything you own that it would NEVER come before November 4.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 4:14 pm to MMauler
quote:
A reelection year.
Do you think that's a coincidence?
no.
It's why they've rejected those two picks.
quote:
Why do you think Harry Reid used the nuclear option to change the rules?
The rule change doesn't apply to Supreme Court nominations thus the GOP can filibuster it until they take over.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 4:15 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:I think the for life thing has turned out to be a bad idea but I do think that if it's going to work, it needed to outlive at least 3 terms of President. Perhaps 4.
Why is the the appointment to the Supreme Court a lifetime appointment?
Of course, when they wrote the constitution, I'm not sure anyone had any idea that the court would become what it is today. For all practical purposes, it has the ability to be a judicial junta.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 4:37 pm to PrimeTime Money
The Supreme Court was never meant to have this much power. Now, five justices can change the law and do pretty much whatever they want.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 4:51 pm to chity
quote:
The Supreme Court was never meant to have this much power. Now, five justices can change the law and do pretty much whatever they want.
Link?
Posted on 3/26/14 at 4:52 pm to Sentrius
quote:
The rule change doesn't apply to Supreme Court nominations thus the GOP can filibuster it until they take over.
The Dems will be losing control of the Senate -- what makes you think that Harry Reid will not just throw in the Supreme Court nominee into the Nuclear Option?
I would guess that the only reason he didn't include the Supreme Court in the original nuclear option is because he didn't have a nominee at that time to employ it.
After what these Democrat scumbags have done over the last 4 years, and what the Obama administration has done over the last 5+ years, do you have ANY doubt that they would do whatever they wanted to in order to get the "right" (no pun intended) replacement for ACLURuthie?
This post was edited on 3/26/14 at 4:54 pm
Posted on 3/26/14 at 5:35 pm to chity
quote:
The Supreme Court was never meant to have this much power. Now, five justices can change the law and do pretty much whatever they want.
WUT??
The SCOTUS can't change the law and has always been pretty powerful. They just were never supposed to be filled with complete hacks like Kagan and Sotomayor who are going to be on the bench until 2040.
Which reminds me about elections. I'm not a fan of the GOP at all. But if they keep losing the Supreme Court will be lost for 50 years. That is a HUGE deal. This is why a Republican winning in 2016 is so important.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News