Supreme Court Justices

[outgirl]

RS said:

Nobody's better at arguing with you than you! ;D

- Rick

Well......I am a Gemini

[penguin]

dr said:

I totally agree with you. The Supreme Court can't be much of a check or balance against the Executive branch if they're appointed by the President.

The check in this case is that your elected Senators must approve the judges. Theoretically, the candidate would have to have widespread approval amongst the states to have a shot.

In Federalist 76, Hamilton argues for the current method of political appointments, including SC judges..

It will be agreed on all hands, that the power of appointment, in ordinary cases, ought to be modified in one of three ways. It ought either to be vested in a single man, or in a SELECT assembly of a moderate number; or in a single man, with the concurrence of such an assembly. The exercise of it by the people at large will be readily admitted to be impracticable; as waiving every other consideration, it would leave them little time to do anything else. When, therefore, mention is made in the subsequent reasonings of an assembly or body of men, what is said must be understood to relate to a select body or assembly, of the description already given. The people collectively, from their number and from their dispersed situation, cannot be regulated in their movements by that systematic spirit of cabal and intrigue, which will be urged as the chief objections to reposing the power in question in a body of men.

He lumped all judicial appointments in there, seeing no reason to single out SC judges, and reasoned that it would be unwieldy to call a national election every time there was a vacancy. The rest of that paper, and several following, lay out the arguments for the judicial system.

Any election, to fit into the idea of a republic of United States, would have to be similar to the presidential elections -- a national convention of states' representatives to make sure a candidate met with the approval of a preponderance of the states. Presumably, Senate approval effects the same end.

The other down side I see is having Justices seeking the position become up-front political. I know politics play into the selection process now, but the idea is supposed to be that judges are beholden to the constitution, not political parties and donors.

I'd leave it alone.

[RS Davis]

penguin said:

The check in this case is that your elected Senators must approve the judges. Theoretically, the candidate would have to have widespread approval amongst the states to have a shot.

In Federalist 76, Hamilton argues for the current method of political appointments, including SC judges..



He lumped all judicial appointments in there, seeing no reason to single out SC judges, and reasoned that it would be unwieldy to call a national election every time there was a vacancy. The rest of that paper, and several following, lay out the arguments for the judicial system.

Any election, to fit into the idea of a republic of United States, would have to be similar to the presidential elections -- a national convention of states' representatives to make sure a candidate met with the approval of a preponderance of the states. Presumably, Senate approval effects the same end.

The other down side I see is having Justices seeking the position become up-front political. I know politics play into the selection process now, but the idea is supposed to be that judges are beholden to the constitution, not political parties and donors.

I'd leave it alone.

Damn, you're smart. I'm back on the fence again.

- Rick

[outgirl]

penguin said:

The check in this case is that your elected Senators must approve the judges. Theoretically, the candidate would have to have widespread approval amongst the states to have a shot.

In Federalist 76, Hamilton argues for the current method of political appointments, including SC judges..



He lumped all judicial appointments in there, seeing no reason to single out SC judges, and reasoned that it would be unwieldy to call a national election every time there was a vacancy. The rest of that paper, and several following, lay out the arguments for the judicial system.

Any election, to fit into the idea of a republic of United States, would have to be similar to the presidential elections -- a national convention of states' representatives to make sure a candidate met with the approval of a preponderance of the states. Presumably, Senate approval effects the same end.

The other down side I see is having Justices seeking the position become up-front political. I know politics play into the selection process now, but the idea is supposed to be that judges are beholden to the constitution, not political parties and donors.

I'd leave it alone.

You make a good point, although I must confess that I don't really understand all the legal jargon in that quote.( Not to be disrespectful, I just didn't understand. I've destroyed a lot of brain cells in my lifetime, lol.) The problem, as you already know, is that the President and Senate are going to push through the candidate that is most likely to further their own agenda. That's why a Bush re-election scares the holy shit out of us gay folks. Now we'd be thrilled with a liberal candidate who would support our agenda for civil rights, so we're just as bad. And while I do want someone who can interpret the law objectively, I also want someone who recognizes that the world and its citizens have changed in the past couple of hundred years and make decisions that while using the constitution as it's foundation, also makes rulings that reflect our lives today. I don't know the answer. As I've said, I don't really trust the people. I think they are mostly uninformed and would prefer to stay that way. Hell, I try to find out about the SC candidates, but I hate voting for all the local judges. I don't know a damn thing about them and I'm voting on whether they should keep their jobs or not. That never seems right, but I agree that it's already political enough without adding judicial campaigns to the process. All I do know is that if Bush is re-elected his chances of tilting the SC in his favor are likely. That is why for gay people, this election is so emotional. We were never really players in the process before. That is why gays will always love Clinton. For all his faults, he was the first to offer us a place at the table. Now we want an equal portion of the American dream. Bush has made it clear.... he is as much my enemy as Saddam. That may sound dramatic but I'm really tired of being a second class citizen in my own country.