Thought I had about Supreme Court. (2 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    BobE

    Guv'nor
    Joined
    May 17, 2019
    Messages
    1,927
    Reaction score
    2,054
    Location
    Norfolk,Va
    Offline
    I guess to kick off the new site I would see what others thought of an idea I had after seeing RBG was out again due to illness. What would the boards thought be on a term limit for USSC judges. Under the thought I had a 10 year limit would be good. Also who ever is POTUS makes the nomination regardless of time left in office. So under this scenario RBG, Roberts and Thomas (feel like I'm forgetting one) would no longer be on the bench and Garland would.

    Thought? Opinions? DIAF?
     
    Don't agree with term limits on the Court.

    While I thought it was dirty pool that McConnell wouldn't even put Garland's nomination up for vote, the reality is that presidents only nominate justices - the Senate has to confirm them. There's no rule that says the Senate has to do it and they have refused to in the past. I don't really know the best way to resolve that.

    I think we had a tradition that was consistent with the language and intent of the nomination and consent process . . . and McConnell trashed that tradition. But I'm not sure of whether it's something that can be fixed. For example, let's say we make a rule that all justice nominations must to go floor vote - would that resolve it? Or would that introduce other problems in other scenarios. I don't know.
     
    I like the idea, but I think maybe they should serve a little longer. Given that presidents can be elected for 2 terms and serve 8 years, it gives one president to much power to reshape the court entirely. We already see how Trump was able to significantly change the direction of the court with just 2 justices (one which was gifted to him by McConnell). I don't know if I like that. So maybe a 15 year terms.

    I would also like to see some type of 5 year review put in place for newly appointed federal judges with a required vote to re-confirm. Given the glut of unqualified judges that Trump and Republicans have nominated and confirmed in such a short time frame, this seems like a necessity now more than ever.
     
    I’m not as worried about the SC as I am about the hundreds and hundreds of unqualified judges that Trump and McConnell have put through. Including several who were rated as “unqualified” by the ABA and got confirmed anyway. IIRC, I heard or read that no president has ever even nominated a judge who earned that grade from the ABA before, let alone putting them on the bench.

    These judges will cause real damage to our country, IMO.
     
    Term limits: I don;t like term limits even for elected officials. Seems like right as a legislator gets effective she is term limited out.

    Similarly for justices. I just don;t see a need for it.

    As far as reconfirmation - absolutely horrible idea imo. It will politicize what is and should be our least politicized branch of the government.
     
    Term limits: I don;t like term limits even for elected officials. Seems like right as a legislator gets effective she is term limited out.

    Similarly for justices. I just don;t see a need for it.

    As far as reconfirmation - absolutely horrible idea imo. It will politicize what is and should be our least politicized branch of the government.

    It's already politicized. Anybody thinking otherwise is being a bit nieve. If it wasn't politicized, you wouldn't see what's going on in the Senate right now. It's for the very reason that I think it may be needed.
     
    It's already politicized. Anybody thinking otherwise is being a bit nieve. If it wasn't politicized, you wouldn't see what's going on in the Senate right now. It's for the very reason that I think it may be needed.
    The confirmation process is politicized for sure. So why ask for more confirmation procedures? That, by definition, is politicizing even more.
     
    More than term limits, I think age limits could be more effective. I'm sorry, there's just no way RBG is anywhere near as sharp as she was even just a decade ago. Shouldn't we want the sharpest legal minds on the country's highest court?
     
    Take Justice Roberts or Justice Souter. You could even go back to Chief Justice Warren.

    These 3 people were nominated and approved with the idea that they would be solid conservatives on the Court. With the possible exception of Roberts they were not. Right now, I am not sure Roberts would win re-confirmation. Probably so, but not clear. Few, if any, of the liberal justices would earn reconfirmation. Warren and SOuter likely would have seen re-confirmation declined.

    And same applies to circuit court justices, district court judges and magistrates. Their record would be poured over in a highly politically charged way. It would begin to weigh on their judicial decision-making process.
     
    Adding term limits, age limits, or significant alterations to the nomination and confirmation process would require constitutional amendment. In other words, isn't going to happen.
     
    I’m not as worried about the SC as I am about the hundreds and hundreds of unqualified judges that Trump and McConnell have put through. Including several who were rated as “unqualified” by the ABA and got confirmed anyway. IIRC, I heard or read that no president has ever even nominated a judge who earned that grade from the ABA before, let alone putting them on the bench.

    These judges will cause real damage to our country, IMO.

    The ABA should get its act together before its opinion is given anymore consideration than anybody else's.

    It's like the SPLC, still relying on a reputation that it has burned. (Not as bad as the SPLC)
     
    I am not familiar with the transgressions of the Bar Association. Can you please link some articles related to bias or misrepresentation from the Bar?

    thanks in advance
     
    While it's slightly off topic, Ginsburg could and should have retired in 2013 at age 80 with Obama in office and a Democratic controlled Senate (and she had already had multiple bouts with cancer and heart problems) but instead she embraced becoming the "Notorious R.B.G." meme and decided to yassss queen forever so now we have to hope she doesn't drop dead for at least 13 more months.
     


    I remember one nominee from a while back who had zero understanding of the rules of evidence. I have no clue as to how the guy could have made it out of law school or got through a bar exam.

    I remember Sen. Kennedy questioning him and the guy was saying things like, "I can learn. " No idea whether he was confirmed.
     
    The confirmation process is politicized for sure. So why ask for more confirmation procedures? That, by definition, is politicizing even more.

    Maybe it can be done though the recommendation a six person panel of experienced judges (equally conservative and liberal) that can then be forwarded to Congress for review, debate and vote. Or some other way to try and remove some of the politicization with some expert input. I'm not sure how to structure it, but I do think federal judges should be reviewed.
     
    Here's the way I'd love to see it work.

    Starting with the next Supreme Court justice to leave office, a currently serving federal court judge (and there could be a requirement that they have served a certain amount of time) is picked at random from the pool of all federal court judges. That judge becomes a Supreme Court justice, and he serves for a term of a set period of time (Say 13 years). At the end of that term, another federal judge is randomly selected.

    What this does is it staggers all of the justices' terms on the bench, and it takes away the ability of one party or another to stack the court with judges who align with their side of the coin.

    Since they are, essentially, the jury who determines cases for the country...why not treat them like we treat jurors at other levels.
     
    The ABA should get its act together before its opinion is given anymore consideration than anybody else's.

    It's like the SPLC, still relying on a reputation that it has burned. (Not as bad as the SPLC)
    What do you mean by "get their act together"? Are you implying that their ratings are not based on verifiable information?
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom