Improve the Supreme Court??

[nick1985]

Really Craig? You really believe that only libs should be allowed in the supreme court? You honestly believe that only progressives understand the issues well enough to rule on them? You do understand that what you want is a totalitarian government?
I'm having trouble with your thinking because I can't understand how anyone could be pro-government. Government is a necessary evil, and should be treated as such. Always constrained, always limited, always feared. I honestly can't grasp how anyone could want more government. I sure as hell don't want to have to grovel at the feet of some fucking bureaucrat every time I need to sneeze.

Sad isnt it.

 

[Robor]

how would adding 1 more = "improve" the court? Keep in mind that the court is not a partisan entity and is totally unelected and not beholden to the electorate.

Riiiiiiiiiight. :biggrin:

 

[piasabird]

I dont think having 10 judges is such a good idea because an odd number is ideal. However, I could think of a few methods for the judge selection process that might take the power to appoint judges away from the President. You could allow the president to select a judge for approval but require the majority leader and the minority leader in the senate to agree on all appointments. This would force them to choose judges who arent too liberal or too conservative if all three have to agree on the process. This way the minority leader has the final say to keep the other party in line. I think this might make the selection process longer and require the majority party to confer with the minority party before they make a fool of themselves.

I think another good idea would be to have term limits on the amount of time that some judge can serve on the supreme court like 5 years. We need some judges that are more in touch with real people. Either that or every 4 years require a vote of confidence during the general presidential election. If judges get voted off, then they would be replaced.

 

[ussfletcher]

The supreme court should mirror the senate, 2 jurors from every state that are appointed by the state's governor. They are appointed for life, or until a public recall vote is held, which would require something like 75% majority.

 

[Craig234]

Really Craig? You really believe that only libs should be allowed in the supreme court?

Hardly. This is a straw man, but it appears you are making it in a good faith mistake.

First, there are no, and are rarely any, liberals on the court. IMO, we have four radical right-wingers, right-wingers, and 'moderates'.

I oppose the radicals. It's smy opinion that they hold a view of our laws so different as to make them unqualified.

I prefer liberals on the court, but I support people I don't agree with there. It's legitimate to have 'conservatives' on the court.

Understand the difference between preferred, not preferred but legitimate, and radicals/unqualified.

You honestly believe that only progressives understand the issues well enough to rule on them?

No. Only they might share my opinions, but others can be competent to rule on them who I disagree with. The people I'm objecting to are the radical federalists who want to gut the basic protections IMO.

Some people aren't comfortable attacking any member of the Supreme Court - they stick to the textbook that says 'the're all non partisan and are reaosnable'.

For these people, their heads are in the sand, and there's not much discussion.

The court could reinstate Plessy v. Ferguson tomorrow and these people would say 'well, that's their legitimate opinion', not that they're radical ideologues undermining our nation's principles and laws.

You do understand that what you want is a totalitarian government?

No, I want NOT totalitarian government. The radical right support views that do support 'totalitarianism'. This latest decision for unlimited corporation is a decision for *tyranny* - not by government directly, but by the private powers, who can buy the government as a result of it and can make the people far less important to who gets elected by money only they can afford dominating the outcome.

I'm having trouble with your thinking because I can't understand how anyone could be pro-government. Government is a necessary evil, and should be treated as such. Always constrained, always limited, always feared. I honestly can't grasp how anyone could want more government. I sure as hell don't want to have to grovel at the feet of some fucking bureaucrat every time I need to sneeze.

I'm not in the mood for a lengthy explanation why this is another straw man. Suffice it to say you do not understand the liberal position IMO. I don't want you groveling at the feet of government OR the rich.

A government too weak to stand up to private power on behalf of the public is one for tyranny. The thing isn't you grovelling to bureacrats, it's whether the government serves the public interest.