With the level of discourse that is present in US elections do you really want to see supreme court justices campaigning every 8 years? I'd be far more interested in a method to reduce the political influence of court appointments not bring it front and center. Beyond pure individual leanings anything from the docket makeup to biding time to find a favorable court get an added political frosting.
It's not a terrible idea. Ted probably doesn't realize Scalia will be one of the first to go.
[–] HappyExile 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Some highlights
"The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government. In a monarchy it is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws."
"the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them...The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."
"The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."
[–] CaptOblivious 1 point 2 points 3 points (+3|-1) ago
Only so he can replace them with people that will uphold his opinions regardless of what the Constitution says.
The answer is no, the Constitution and the 14th amendment clearly state that everyone gets the same rights.
The VERY FIRST SENTENCE off the FIRST AMENDMENT is
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
That means that just like MY religion does not get to make laws you have to live under, your religion does not get to make laws either.
[–] didntsayeeeee ago
I'm not sure how that's logically connected to anything under debate here.
The Constitution certainly doesn't say that you can't make laws which are consistent with any particular religion. For instance, just because the bible says "Thou Shalt Not Kill" doesn't mean they can't make a law against murder.
[–] CaptOblivious 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
A law against murder has a secular purpose of preventing harm.
Making a law that prevents a group of people from having their constitutionally guaranteed rights because someone's god says they are sinners worthy of death has no secular purpose.
It is only made more ridiculous when you consider the fact that the same people that believe that gays are worthy of being treated as less than people because their god says so ignore the exact same language in the bible that forbids them eating shellfish, pork and wearing clothing made of mixed fibers.
[–] ForensicFungineer 1 point 2 points 3 points (+3|-1) ago
I'm adamantly for the ruling today, and adamantly opposed to just about anything that snakes out of Cruz' mouth, but this isn't a terrible idea. I think it should be a long duration for a SCOTUS appointment, but any appointment "for life" really weirds me out.
[–] didntsayeeeee ago
Why not just give them a single long term with no possibility of keeping the job at the end? Here's a twenty-year contract, see you at retirement. Or maybe fifteen.
[–] pm_me_firearms 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
He also voted against the fast tracking of the TPP. Say what you will, but he isn't totally evil.
[–] Xomthusiast [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Yup. There are good reasons to disconnect federal judges from the immediate whims of the electorate, but it's clear that completely isolating them from oversight produces bad results.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
[–] Xomthusiast [S] 1 point 3 points 4 points (+4|-1) ago
Yeah, my own Presidential sympathies are mostly with Rand Paul, but I thought that it was a very interesting suggestion. We'll see if it's practical or not, but I like idea guys, and this is proof that Cruz can be a good idea guy. There are good reasons not to make federal judges subject to the immediate whims of the electorate, but complete isolation from the electorate hasn't worked properly either. Plus, Cruz is right that no federal judge fears impeachment - it took ten years for Thomas Porteous to be removed from the bench, and he was openly bought.
[–] HappyExile ago
They aren't really in complete isolation from the electorate though. They are nominated by an elected official (PotUS) and have to be confirmed by elected officials (Congress).
[–] [deleted] 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
[–] Xomthusiast [S] ago
They are under direct threat of the legislature, though, right now (impeachment). It's an empty threat that doesn't amount to anything, which makes the practical situation worse than if there were no oversight.
[–] HappyExile 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
Impeachment can only be used is they do some heinous shit, like kill people. You can't impeach a justice because you disagree with him.
[–] QuestionEverything ago (edited ago)
Just remember. The NSA and CIA have had devices like Echelon listening to these people every time they farted, for DECADES now.
You don't think anyone uses things like blackmail to influence people?
Just remember, corporations are people...
edit. "The great tragedy of man is that they do not remember." -Merlin