Improve the Supreme Court??

[PokerGuy]

You aren't getting it. Read the info I'm posting.

If 'other recount cases come forward', they WON'T be held to the same because of this decision, because the decision added an instruction for it not to be used a precedent for any other case.

Of course, you twit, they ruled on that specific scenario, nothing more, nothing less. When will you leftist crybabies finally get over the fact that the correct person won the election and it was a correct ruling? Find something else to cry about already, like maybe those right-wing radical judges LOL

 

[ElFenix]

Craig234.
You should really pick up a history book for once in your life before posting.

the court packing threat lead to southern democrats and northern republicans figuring out they could work together, and eventually led to the southern democrats taking over the republican party.

 

[Ozoned]

Maybe they need to replace the 4 left wing radicals also.

If they do not agree with your view point; they must be bad!

Craig is just as partisan as you or I. To bad he is wrong,,,,most of the time. Heh!

 

[Genx87]

FDR is that you?

 

[lothar]

Partisan is preference for a faction. It might be party, or ideology, or nation, or any other faction.

In a traditional definition, it simply means supporting one faction - he's a partisan for democracy over the aqlternatives.

In the modern and relevant use, it means he supports a faction past the point of a fair opinion - he puts them ahead of a fair basis.

So you hear the term as in 'when Republican did X, he praised it, but when a Democrat did X, he criticized it.' 'Oh, he's partisan'.

It's often seen when one has a pretermined faction - and they stick to it even when the facts don't back them up. It's seen with double standards.

Bush v. Gore was partisan, IMO, since the measure is opinion. Many if not most legal scholars have said the same. It wasn't a roll of the dice the right-wing members voted for the Republican candidate's position.

I'd ask you to think about it and use common sense, but I'm not sure you are like to do so.

In every election, in every state, there are 'inconsistent standard' for counting votes. It varies county by county if not precinct by precinct.

If the 'equal protection' clause were applied consistently, not one election in one state would be valid. The court has never applied this standard.

But in Bush v. Gore, looking for an excuse to block the recount other than "Gore might win it and we want Bush", the lawyers came up with the equal protection argument.

And the right-wing justices and only them agreed.

But the Supreme Court decisions set precedent. So didn't they just make every election illegal?

No, that's a smoking gun to their partisanship: they added a note saying 'this equal protection argument is ruled to count ONLY for this one election in this one state and can't be used anywhere else'.

If you weren't partisan that would give you information on the partisanship.

Didn't Supreme court justice Stephen Breyer also vote with the other conservative justices on an issue regarding Election 2000? I remember there being 2 votes, one was a 6:3 vote while the main decision was a 5:4 vote.

 

[ElFenix]

Didn't Supreme court justice Stephen Breyer also vote with the other conservative justices on an issue regarding Election 2000? I remember there being 2 votes, one was a 6:3 vote while the main decision was a 5:4 vote.

iirc, they were 7-2 on the decision to stop the recounts that were taking place, and then like 5-1.5-2-3 on what to do after that.

 

[Jiggz]

how about we drop it to seven...this should make the righties happy about having less government...right!?

Actually we can even drop it to ONE and give it also to SOB (Sotero Obama Barrack) and while you're at it give him congress too! Hooyaah, now let's see who's better looking, Hugo or SOB?

 

[Jiggz]

Maybe they need to replace the 4 left wing radicals also.

If they do not agree with your view point; they must be bad!

This is so true that Craig himself cannot even agree with his image on the mirror, so that is really bad!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Why would the people get disgusted with GOP lockstep when they clearly seem to behind the GOP blocking this Obama/Democrat garbage? You need to take your head out of the sand. Its funny how democrats with a supermajority and the whitehouse can do nothing but blame the GOP. I wonder if your failure of a party would be able to do anything even if it had a majority in the SCOTUS as well?

Obama is a inexperienced FAILURE being led around like a puppy by Pelosi and Reid. Instead of doing whats best for the country they are only interested in ramming extreme left wing policies down our throats. But don't let almost all of the major elections since Obama was elected tell you otherwise. Obama lied about his agenda and he's about to be punished severely for it unless he starts moving toward the center.

ohh boohoo....it`s sad that you fear No Evil actually believes your own made up crap...

 

[IronWing]

The current court is not to my liking however I think that the current system for elevating justices is one of the better features of our constitution. The problem is not the supreme court, the problem is craven senators.

 

[ProfJohn]

For the record the Bush v. Gore case was decided by a 7-2 majority.

Not even close to being a party line vote.

It was only during the remedy stage that the court was 5-4.

And of course the best part of Bush v Gore is the fact that Gore set himself of for defeat by following a course of action that made it very easy for the court to bitch slap down without much thought or discussion. If Gore had called for a statewide recount he might have kept the SC out of it.

 

[ProfJohn]

My humble suggestion:

Judges are appointed for non-reoccurring 18 year terms. With a new judge being appoint on odd years.

This way each President gets to appoint 2 justices per term and we keep the court pretty balanced toward what the American people are voting for.

Would also make people pay more attention to judicial actions when voting.

 

[EXman]

Maybe they need to replace the 4 left wing radicals also.

If they do not agree with your view point; they must be bad!

Craig's MO

 

[HomerJS]

For the record the Bush v. Gore case was decided by a 7-2 majority.

Not even close to being a party line vote.

It was only during the remedy stage that the court was 5-4.

And of course the best part of Bush v Gore is the fact that Gore set himself of for defeat by following a course of action that made it very easy for the court to bitch slap down without much thought or discussion. If Gore had called for a statewide recount he might have kept the SC out of it.

Since its up to the states to run their part of federal elections the SC should never have heard the case. Final call should have been the FLA SC.

 

[nick1985]

Craig's MO

pretty much

 

[Craig234]

Craig is just as partisan as you or I. To bad he is wrong,,,,most of the time. Heh!

You lie, most of the time.

 

[Craig234]

My humble suggestion:

Judges are appointed for non-reoccurring 18 year terms. With a new judge being appoint on odd years.

This way each President gets to appoint 2 justices per term and we keep the court pretty balanced toward what the American people are voting for.

Would also make people pay more attention to judicial actions when voting.

People would pay more attention to judicial nominees if their terms were 18 years, not life. Makes no sense.

 

[Craig234]

For the record the Bush v. Gore case was decided by a 7-2 majority.

Not even close to being a party line vote.

It was only during the remedy stage that the court was 5-4.

And of course the best part of Bush v Gore is the fact that Gore set himself of for defeat by following a course of action that made it very easy for the court to bitch slap down without much thought or discussion. If Gore had called for a statewide recount he might have kept the SC out of it.

Gore followed the correct legal procedure in Florida, which called for exactly what he did, suing for recounts in specific counties.

The objection to this was created after his suit, by creating the 'equal protection' argument that had never been used and the Supreme Cort who ruled for it saying could not be used anywhere else.

 

[Craig234]

This is so true that Craig himself cannot even agree with his image on the mirror, so that is really bad!

HUh? You quoted an offensive lie. No surprise.

 

[Craig234]

iirc, they were 7-2 on the decision to stop the recounts that were taking place, and then like 5-1.5-2-3 on what to do after that.

They were 7-2 on the equal protection violation, 5-4 on stopping the recount.

What is that last string of numbers?

 

[lothar]

People would pay more attention to judicial nominees if their terms were 18 years, not life. Makes no sense.

Lifetime appointment doesn't achieve anything except leading to the nomination of judges right out of high school.
Next thing you know both parties will start packing 20-30 year olds on the supreme court to serve a lifetime appointment of 70-80 years.

 

[Craig234]

Lifetime appointment doesn't achieve anything except leading to the nomination of judges right out of high school.
Next thing you know both parties will start packing 20-30 year olds on the supreme court to serve a lifetime appointment of 70-80 years.

Your speculation about how that might work is very useful, given the lack of over 200 years of history to test your theory. Oh wait, we do, explaining the many 20 year olds nominated to the Supreme Court.

 

[Greenman]

IMO, the court is a very serious problem with the four right-wing radicals. This isn't really a solution though. We need to not put right-wing radicals on the court, not split the parties evenly permanently.

Unfortunately, while presidential elections if we're lucky might be about one or two issues instead of who you'd like to have a beer with, this os one of those issues determined by the election, but not determining the election, and when we get a radical like Bush was or a President otherwise inclined to appoint a radical, that's the kind of nominee we're likely to get.

When the people decide badly, people often rush to change the rules to fix the problem. The President appointed X badly? Let's not let him appoint!

The thing is, the people did not get very involved in the Supreme Court approvals, and did not pressure their Senators to vote no. That's the legitimate democratic way to address this.

If our political system isn't working because the voters are not doing their part, it's hard to see how a rules trying to make up for that in this case is going to improve things.

The question is raised of this bad of justices as these 4 being recalled because they so consistently and so badly rule the same radical way, but it's a very tricky matter that abuses the constitution.

FDR seems to have gotten around it by threatening to expand the court, at a big political cost, after which some of the 'problem' justices seem to have moderated. That's not likely to help here.

We're paying a big price for our bad justices - our nations legal system being altered by the radicals over and over overturnig established law, fitting the Federalist Society agenda.

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.

 

[sportage]

Sad thing is, whatever the decission justices make, decssions are usually based on their political/moral personal beliefs in any case. THEN... they just need to find some bs argument to publically support their decission. Worse than their decission, good or bad, is that little voice in their head they claim supported or they feel "reasoned" their decission making.
Law... we don't need no stinkin law to decide an issue. (Justice John Roberts)

 

[Double Trouble]

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.

Excellent, I agree.

Craig is one of those who loves government because he believes only the enlightened liberals are smart enough to know what everyone needs to do. The more they can control everyone's life, the better for all of us. Any independent thought is dangerous to society in his view.