HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » It's time to start pushin...

Sat Jun 25, 2022, 02:11 PM

 

It's time to start pushing for a constitutional amendment...

…that changes how Supreme Court justices are seated and how long they serve. Justices should be elected directly by the people in non-partisan contests and should serve one twenty year term, and not be eligible for subsequent terms.

5 replies, 496 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to PTWB (Original post)

Sat Jun 25, 2022, 02:15 PM

1. I hate voting for judges...nothing to base my decision on...

I could go for term limits, though. 20-25 years is plenty IMO.

I'd also expand it, to at minimum 13, and possibly more. That way, one president can't have as much influence in the overall makeup of the court like happened with trump.

Frankly, the judiciary seems to be woefully understaffed. Cases should not take years to resolve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PTWB (Original post)

Sat Jun 25, 2022, 02:16 PM

2. We need one as the decision to overturn included the phase that any medical procedures not

explicitly mentioned in the Constitution are not constitutional. IMHO they (the Justices) made a serious mistake.

++++++++++++++++++
So, basically all medical procedures etc. not outlined in the Constitution are unconstitutional?

This certainly sounds like what they are saying. The framers of the Constitution didn't have any idea or the scope of what medicine can do today, certainly they wouldn't have made these procedures constitutionally illegal if saving someone's life involved brain surgery or the like. This reasoning is grossly wrong.

1 The court’s decision is both straightforward and incredibly sweeping.

The decision written by Justice Samuel Alito flatly declares that “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start.” It rules that because a right to abortion is neither explicitly laid out in the Constitution nor “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions,” it deserves no protection as a fundamental right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PTWB (Original post)

Sat Jun 25, 2022, 02:18 PM

3. Let's devote our energies to pushing for something we need first: More elected Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PTWB (Original post)

Sat Jun 25, 2022, 02:24 PM

4. The original reason for appointing judges for lifetime terms was

so they wouldn't be too influenced by short-term political trends. Well, we saw how that turned out. The Court has always been influenced by politics, but in recent times, at least, it's never been so blatantly partisan as it is now. In my state, and probably some others, judges are initially appointed by the governor but after that they have to run for re-election every six years, without party affiliation. M. This method allows governors to appoint ideologically-sympathetic judges, but if those judges turn out to be bad in some way they can be voted out. Most of the time they run unopposed; lately there have been some regular extreme RW candidates but they always lose. This system seems to work pretty well - we haven't had any really horrible judges on the appellate courts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ocelot II (Reply #4)

Sat Jun 25, 2022, 02:54 PM

5. Our system is similar, although Covid Kim did manage to

change the nominating commissions to allow herself to fill the majority of the seats on the commissions.

Our elections are not contested, but an up or down vote on whether the judge should be retained. Only four jurists have ever been voted out of office. One because he was incompetent, and three Supreme Court justices who were part of the unanimous decision that the state law against same sex marriages violated equal protection under our Constitution. They were victims of a right wing smear campaign, and felt they couldn’t, or shouldn’t, hit back.

I am vehemently against electing judges. How would you like to be a litigant in a case where your opponent contributed to the judge’s election campaign?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread