The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: J P Sousa on June 30, 2015, 10:23:39 AM
-
Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas has been among the most vociferous critics of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions on Obamacare and gay marriage, and he has since called for holding judicial retention elections for high court justices.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/30/ted-cruzs-plan-for-supreme-court-retention-electio/
Cruz wants to have a retention election of Supreme Court Justices every eight years. Of course this will need to be achieved by an Amendment to the Constitution.
While the Justices are supposed to be "detached from politics" it is clear to me they are far more political than anyone wants them to be.
My proposal is to elect Judges for ONE 9 year term. There could be an election every two years along with representatives. That way Judges would be on a continuous rotation and they could NOT be elected more than once.
I know the framers intended an "independent" Supreme Court but are there REALLY ANY INDEPENDENT judges ????
In my opinion anything involving human beings is NEVER INDEPENDENT.........especially independent voters. :rotf:
-
That puts judges in as politicians, and we're right back to the same ol' problem -- professional politicians.
I would favor a 9 year APPOINTMENT, at the end of which term the judge or justice goes off to open up his own law firm and he can haggle with the rest of the f'n ambulance chasers.
:nunchuck:
-
How about we just repeal the Woodrow Wilson driven 17th Amendment and let the states regain the ability to appoint their representation in D.C.
-
How about we just repeal the Woodrow Wilson driven 17th Amendment and let the states regain the ability to appoint their representation in D.C.
I'm not so sure that would help. The Illinois state government is almost always controlled by democrats, but sometimes a republican can win one of the senate seats. That would never happen if the state appointed them.
-
I'm not so sure that would help. The Illinois state government is almost always controlled by democrats, but sometimes a republican can win one of the senate seats. That would never happen if the state appointed them.
IIRC the Governor made the appointments prior to the 17th. That means in say the case of Illinois and even Maryland the GOP Governor makes the appointments...which means GOP representation.
-
IIRC the Governor made the appointments prior to the 17th. That means in say the case of Illinois and even Maryland the GOP Governor makes the appointments...which means GOP representation.
The Gov didn't always appoint the Senators, sometimes it was the legislatures. Personally, my thought is: if each state has equal representation in the Senate, why do they need TWO? Wouldn't ONE be enough?
-
There are not enough checks and balances on the Supreme court.
-
That puts judges in as politicians, and we're right back to the same ol' problem -- professional politicians.
I would favor a 9 year APPOINTMENT, at the end of which term the judge or justice goes off to open up his own law firm and he can haggle with the rest of the f'n ambulance chasers.
:nunchuck:
Well THAT is the problem, the Judges have become very political with NO recourse by the people.
At least if the people could vote on them, possibly the people would have SOME control. In my proposal, say in 2020 or whenever, one Justice is elected then in 2022 another is elected and so on.....
The DUmmies come out in presidential elections and conservatives seem to have more influence in "off year" elections.
When I was involved in County politics, it was the lawyers with the most political contributions that were appointed as judges. Therefore MY definition of a judge; "a lawyer who is also a politician". (the phrase: "Burma Shave" comes to mind....yeah I'm that old). :-)
-
Well THAT is the problem, the Judges have become very political with NO recourse by the people.
At least if the people could vote on them, possibly the people would have SOME control. In my proposal, say in 2020 or whenever, one Justice is elected then in 2022 another is elected and so on.....
The DUmmies come out in presidential elections and conservatives seem to have more influence in "off year" elections.
When I was involved in County politics, it was the lawyers with the most political contributions that were appointed as judges. Therefore MY definition of a judge; "a lawyer who is also a politician". (the phrase: "Burma Shave" comes to mind....yeah I'm that old). :-)
Well, the whole idea about the judicial branch is those who are tasked with INTERPRETING the law do so without political influence, such as having to run a political campaign (and thereby solicit favors/kickbacks/payoffs). Their livelihoods would not be impacted by either voters or politicians -- they are free to interpret the law based on the law and legal precedent.
The problem with Roberts and Kennedy and the rest of the liberal proglodytes that infest SCOTUS is, they're completely forgotten that the Constitution LIMITS the power of the federal government and expressly permits certain activities by the 3 branches, relegating everything else to the States.
John Marshall ****ed up SCOTUS as early as 1801 and kept ****ing it up till he croaked. It's been downhill ever since.