Maybe It's Time to Change the way we replace Supreme Court Justices

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Dayton3, Sep 18, 2020.

  1. Just A Man

    Just A Man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    12,297
    Likes Received:
    9,287
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I could go along with the OP but only if all politicians are restricted to one term.
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    SCOTUS has been corrupted since Marbury v Madison (1803). No one in the US government should ever be appointed or otherwise serve for life. All judges, regardless of jurisdiction, should be elected by popular vote for no more than 2 terms of 6 years each in any jurisdiction (i.e. they can run again but only in another jurisdiction once they've completed their term). All candidate judges should be required to pass a rigorous test on the Constitution for which they must answer at least 95% of the questions correctly (minimum 80 questions) for eligibility purposes. No judge should run under any political party affiliation, that is an immediate conflict of interest.
     
    RodB likes this.
  3. joesnagg

    joesnagg Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2020
    Messages:
    4,749
    Likes Received:
    6,799
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not too keen on picking judges by popular vote, look what THAT'S brought about in mayors, city councils, state legislatures, governorships, and congress. But I'm ALL in on a mandatory retirement age across the board, though not necessarily at 65.
     
  4. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,358
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I like your post but don't fully agree with everything. You are correct that with Marbury v. Madison the Court glommed onto power not wanted by the framers. I also think judges should have term limits. However, electing judges is a bad idea. That forces them to be political; judges should be above the transitory emotions of the populace. I agree with the sentiment of qualification testing, but it is not possible in practice. Who would draw up the exam, and who would test them?
     
    joesnagg likes this.
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's what a true democratic process is all about. It's The People's choice.

    I agree, no one over a certain age should be in any position of authority or hold any critical position.

    See first response above. Judges are political under the current system. I added that no candidate judge should run under any political party to remove as much conflict of interest as possible.

    It's possible. The test should be assembled by a selection of constitutional professors who don't hold any government position. As a suggestion, perhaps 5 questions and associated answers submitted by each of 40 law school professors, validated by another group of professors and 80 questions/answers should be selected by blind lottery from the 200 submitted. Testing can be done electronically and securely. The tests should be refreshed prior to each candidacy deadline.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2020
  6. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,358
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree with the sentiment, but that is a practical impossibility. Sure it could be law that a judge cannot run under party name, but that is simply window dressing. They have to campaign and they cannot do that without being political. Voting for judges is one of the places when democracy is on the wrong side of the equation. The current method is designed and supposed to be apolitical. How often does that work out?

    This does not address my concern. How would we ever know if those 40 selected "scholars" know what they are talking about or have no bias? Who will assess and test the examiners? And who will assess and test them? Do you know of any constitutional issue where all commenting law professors agree? ANS: no, never has nor will happen.
     
    ChiCowboy likes this.
  7. Mr.Incognito

    Mr.Incognito Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And why do you think our founding fathers didn't just set up a one party system then?
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2020
    Quantum Nerd likes this.
  8. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,822
    Likes Received:
    32,492
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not only did they warn again our current two party system they said that blind allegiance to party over nation would be what destroys this nation. The post by @God & Country shows the mindset perfectly.
     
    Quantum Nerd and Mr.Incognito like this.
  9. God & Country

    God & Country Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    4,487
    Likes Received:
    2,837
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The current system has never been apolitical, that's an illusion. It has never worked out because there are too many flaws in both the system and the Constitution itself.

    It was merely one suggestion I came up with, I'm sure there are better suggestions. You haven't come up with any other than criticism. The process I suggested is akin to peer review within a large group of constitutional scholars, reviewed by a second group of constitutional scholars. The questions should reflect a thorough knowledge and understanding of the Constitution and its intent, not a quiz on case "law".
     
  11. God & Country

    God & Country Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    4,487
    Likes Received:
    2,837
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The founders did not set up the parties that exist now and America was a different country then. There were differences in opinions regarding the nature of government, the economy and foreign policy but they were unanimous in America as a sovereign country. Once the system of government was settled the other issues became less polar. Those other issues were seen through a different prism for each of multiple parties but were settled one way or the other until eventually two distinct parties emerged. The Democrat and Republican parties differences were small and the smooth operation of America resulted from cooperation and bipartisanship. Sometime in the 1960s the Democrat party took a sharp turn to the left and the partnership dissolved and we have been engaged in a struggle ever since.The present day Democrat party has no connection to the pre 1960s party whatsoever and is now an organ of the Marxist left. You have to ask yourself what party openly supports anti America sentiment and anti American activity, what party endorses members who openly malign America on the floor of the House and openly admit to subscribing to unAmerica political views. You have to ask yourself do we want to be the America of the founders or some failing alternative that would revoke the Constitution and turn our beloved republic into some third world shithole.[/QUOTE]
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2020
    RodB likes this.
  12. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,358
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As cd8ed says the framers did not like political parties and thought them a danger to the republic. They set up no political parties but knew they were inevitable. The framers also knew that the best constitution should be short, direct and succinct, and so purposely did not address all possible contingencies. That would have weakened the Constitution, and so they left it up to the people to sustain or destroy it. As Ben Franklin quipped, "we gave you a republic, if you can keep it."
     
  13. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,358
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's what I said. The framers knew full well that a solid constitution had to be short and succinct. It could not cover all contingencies or situations, so the framers purposely did not try to.

    IMO there is no pat solution that assures competent apolitical judges. There is not and cannot be any competency tests for president, vice president, presidential advisors, senators, or representatives. The only thing that IMO we need is term limits and a check on the Court which currently is the only branch of the three that has no check and balance. Something like one of the amendments being discussed in the Convention of the States effort: a process where, with certain limitations, a super majority of state legislatures or Congress can overturn Supreme Court rulings and decisions.
     
  14. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,310
    Likes Received:
    6,668
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Term limits for elected officials is a crushingly bad idea. It inevitably transfers the power in government to lobbyists and unelected bureaucrats to a degree never seen before. Also, officials who cannot seek reelection again have absolutely no incentive to govern responsibly or honestly. They have a massive incentive to "get it while they can".
     
    RodB likes this.
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I strongly disagree. The prime directive for ALL the above is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. If these people are not familiar with or misinformed about the content, principles and intent of the Constitution, they cannot and should not occupy any of the above positions as they automatically fail the competency test. This is as basic as it gets and it is measurable. It doesn't mean that any of these people will actually abide by all constitutional principles once in office, that can't be ascertained by a test, but it does mean that if they pass it, they know and understand what they are affirming to via the Oath of Office. It also does not mean they will be competent for the position but at least it will determine that they understand exactly what they are taking the Oath of Office to. For example, Trump would have failed miserably because he believes that Article II grants him the power to do anything he wants. He likely never read the Constitution, never mind Article II before he won the election. Obama would have likely passed but failed the Oath dramatically in many ways. And Bush would have likely failed because I doubt he's intelligent enough to have passed such a test. So 2 of the last 3 Presidents would not have qualified for the office they occupy(ied).
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Peer review. All SCOTUS decisions should be guided strictly by whether a law or act is constitutionally compliant or not. It should not be guided by "interpretation" of the Constitution itself ("wag the dog") or case "law". In other words, the law or act itself should be interpreted for compliance. How that would work in practice is an exercise for constitutional scholars (the peers).
     
  17. Mr.Incognito

    Mr.Incognito Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    [/QUOTE]
    Hell no we don't want to be the American of our slave owning fathers, we can do much better than that. Make America Great Again huh? No thanks!!!
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2020
  18. God & Country

    God & Country Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    4,487
    Likes Received:
    2,837
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hell no we don't want to be the American of our slave owning fathers, we can do much better than that. Make America Great Again huh? No thanks!!![/QUOTE]So some socialist replacement then????
     
  19. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unnecessary.
    None of this was an issue until the the Democrats got screwed doing something they wish would have done to the GOP.
     
    Dayton3 likes this.

Share This Page