Thought I had about Supreme Court. (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    BobE

    Guv'nor
    Joined
    May 17, 2019
    Messages
    1,927
    Reaction score
    2,066
    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?
     

    superchuck500

    U.S. Blues
    Joined
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages
    3,842
    Reaction score
    9,302
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Offline
    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.
     

    coldseat

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 30, 2019
    Messages
    2,351
    Reaction score
    3,859
    Age
    47
    Location
    San Antonio
    Offline
    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.
     

    MT15

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Mar 13, 2019
    Messages
    11,775
    Reaction score
    17,081
    Location
    Midwest
    Offline
    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.
     

    JimEverett

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 30, 2019
    Messages
    1,831
    Reaction score
    1,444
    Location
    Nashville
    Offline
    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.
     

    coldseat

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 30, 2019
    Messages
    2,351
    Reaction score
    3,859
    Age
    47
    Location
    San Antonio
    Offline
    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.
     

    JimEverett

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 30, 2019
    Messages
    1,831
    Reaction score
    1,444
    Location
    Nashville
    Offline
    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.
     

    insidejob

    "Trained Marxist"
    Joined
    May 21, 2019
    Messages
    2,625
    Reaction score
    3,455
    Age
    87
    Location
    ग्लानि
    Offline
    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?
     

    JimEverett

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 30, 2019
    Messages
    1,831
    Reaction score
    1,444
    Location
    Nashville
    Offline
    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.
     

    superchuck500

    U.S. Blues
    Joined
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages
    3,842
    Reaction score
    9,302
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Offline
    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.
     

    Beach Friends

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Oct 2, 2019
    Messages
    2,521
    Reaction score
    1,426
    Age
    47
    Location
    Gulf
    Offline
    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)
     

    CoolBrees

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 29, 2019
    Messages
    1,343
    Reaction score
    2,902
    Age
    46
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Offline
    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
     

    EmBeeFiveOhFour

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Oct 1, 2019
    Messages
    636
    Reaction score
    1,951
    Location
    Near a River's Bend
    Offline
    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.
     

    Beach Friends

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Oct 2, 2019
    Messages
    2,521
    Reaction score
    1,426
    Age
    47
    Location
    Gulf
    Offline


    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.
     

    coldseat

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 30, 2019
    Messages
    2,351
    Reaction score
    3,859
    Age
    47
    Location
    San Antonio
    Offline
    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.
     

    FullMonte

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Nov 14, 2019
    Messages
    942
    Reaction score
    1,600
    Age
    55
    Location
    Bossier City
    Offline
    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.
     

    DJ1BigTymer

    Yo! We got some hats now...
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    1,098
    Reaction score
    1,897
    Age
    50
    Location
    New Orleans
    Offline
    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

    MAP Amazon Affiliate Ad

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Top Bottom