The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: dutch508 on July 06, 2014, 10:11:10 AM
-
As I understand it, lifetime appointments were to make sure the SCJs were not "holdin'" to anyone and could rule without fear of political enfluence. Of course, the concern for SCJs are only directed at the conservative ones.
RKP5637 (29,859 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025201126
Why did SCOTUS Justices receive lifetime appointments way back. It's never made sense to
me. Times change. I'm not so sure being rooted in the past is always such a great idea. Also, some Justices bring a lot of baggage with them to the position. It seems to me this is the only situation wherein an appointment is for life? I thought it strange as a little kid and I still do now. What were the founders thinking?
Justices can and do, of course, shape the entire nature of a nation and it lasts for eons. Not all decisions are good IMO. And politics need to be removed from SCOTUS ... as it seems now, that is sometimes to me at least the first consideration in their rulings. It is so wrong.
I agree with the DUmpmonkie's point. ALL politics should be of no regard to the SCJs. It's the liberal judges that seem to be swayed in this way- IMHO.
Cha (146,476 posts)
18. Yeah, "in theory" but the republicons have desecrated that theory.
Do we have examples of this? No? Of course not. Being truthful to the Constitution, as written, is to be swayed by republican beliefs.
The Velveteen Ocelot (37,442 posts)
31. So the real problem isn't just that they live to be old, but that now they are younger when appointed and therefore are on the court for decades. There is some merit to a mandatory retirement age so their departure would at least be predictable.
I can think of a few that should be retired... but I am sure the liberal judges would be that last ones retired by the DUmp.
Cha (146,476 posts)
9. It f*C*ing makes No Sense. WTH! Who gets that except freaking Kings and Queens?!!
Another DUmpmonkie with no knowledge of why the government is as it is.
RKP5637 (29,859 posts)
37. To me, this is spot on! The GOP has polluted the justice system with politics. A number of the
Justices do not rule blindly, but rather with "a dogmatic axe to grind" which is so blatantly apparent anymore.
Change GOP and Republican for Democrat.
-
Cha (146,476 posts)
18. Yeah, "in theory" but the republicons have desecrated that theory.
Do we have examples of this? No? Of course not. Being truthful to the Constitution, as written, is to be swayed by republican beliefs.
Dutch. you are more or less correct.
But, there have been quite a few cases before the SC wherein the Justices had to delve into the federalist papers to get a more precise interpretation of the thinking that went into a particular clause (such as the two most recent cases concerning the 2nd amendment). It seems to me, and I am in no such way a constitutional lawyer, it takes more skill than breaking the paragraphs and sentences into clauses and interpreting the placement of commas.
-
Dutch. you are more or less correct.
But, there have been quite a few cases before the SC wherein the Justices had to delve into the federalist papers to get a more precise interpretation of the thinking that went into a particular clause (such as the two most recent cases concerning the 2nd amendment). It seems to me, and I am in no such way a constitutional lawyer, it takes more skill than breaking the paragraphs and sentences into clauses and interpreting the placement of commas.
What the court does, any court, is to interpret the law. They do this by common sense and by established case law. In the SC they also look at constitutional law. The decent comes from that interpretation of those laws and history and to delve what was meant in the constitution.
The doctrine of the rule of law dictates that government must be conducted according to law.
As we know from civics class:
The legislative branch is made up of the two houses of Congress—the Senate and the House of Representatives. The most important duty of the legislative branch is to make laws. Laws are written, discussed and voted on in Congress.
The President is the head of the executive branch, which makes laws official. The President approves and carries out laws passed by the legislative branch.
The judicial branch oversees the court system of the U.S. Through court cases, the judicial branch explains the meaning of the Constitution and laws passed by Congress. The Supreme Court is the head of the judicial branch. Unlike a criminal court, the Supreme Court rules whether something is constitutional or unconstitutional—whether or not it is permitted under the Constitution.
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. Its decisions are final, and no other court can overrule those decisions. Decisions of the Supreme Court set precedents—new ways of interpreting the law.
All of this, the very foundation on which our country is established, is being slowly eroded by the left.
-
The DUmmie has a point. We have the absolute worst decision since Ferguson with the Obamacare "is a tax" decision by John Roberts, that "evil conservative." I believe I would give up all our other significant wins if we could have that one back.
-
RKP5637 (29,859 posts)
37. To me, this is spot on! The GOP has polluted the justice system with politics. A number of the
Justices do not rule blindly, but rather with "a dogmatic axe to grind" which is so blatantly apparent anymore.
Yeah, cuz there's not an ounce of "a dogmatic axe to grind" of Princess Wise Latina!
Cindie
-
Decisions of the Supreme Court set precedents—new ways of interpreting the law.
This is the current problem with the SCOTUS, however, with the last few rulings, it might be getting back to what it should be doing.
-
Yeah, because Ginsberg & Sotamayor are so nonpolitical. :whatever:
-
All Federal judicial appointments are for life, not just the Supreme Court Justices...except the Bankruptcy Court, because the law establishing those positions was enacted under a Democrat Congress and a Republican President, and the Congress couldn't stand the thought of a Republican being able to make 300-odd new lifetime appointments.
-
KP5637 (29,859 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025201126
Why did SCOTUS Justices receive lifetime appointments way back. It's never made sense to
me. Times change. I'm not so sure being rooted in the past is always such a great idea. Also, some Justices bring a lot of baggage with them to the position. It seems to me this is the only situation wherein an appointment is for life? I thought it strange as a little kid and I still do now. What were the founders thinking?
Justices can and do, of course, shape the entire nature of a nation and it lasts for eons. Not all decisions are good IMO. And politics need to be removed from SCOTUS ... as it seems now, that is sometimes to me at least the first consideration in their rulings. It is so wrong.
The founders were thinking the Senate would do its job and that any appointee that had baggage would be voted down.