• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

the official new supreme court thread - Very political

mersk862 said:
I agree with the idea of entry requirements. Part of the reason I'm opposed to Lagoa and Allison Jones being nominated to the Supreme Court is that they have less than two years on a circuit court - to me, that's a rather limited amount.

I see an upper age limit as similar to enacting term limits in Congress (which is something I support 100%). It would allow for more rotations through the Supreme Court; couple that with entry requirements, and realistically the longest someone would be able to serve is around 20 years - long enough to make plenty of impact, but not so long to have the seat held by one person for 30+ years, as we saw with John Paul Stevens and will hit next year with Clarence Thomas.
Click to expand...

I have always thought we’ve needed term limits for Congress. But not age-based. Same for the Court. Don’t profile someone’s ability to do the job based on age. RBG was apparently a perfectly competent Supreme Court Justice at age 87. Let’s change the presidential Supreme Court appointment to ten years, or something other than lifetime.
 
BillBrasky said:
Exactly it wasn't rebuked, it was used as political leverage by FDR because the Supreme Court tried to shoot down all the New Deal legislation that was being passed by FDR and the Democratic Party. Once the court backed off, the Democrats backed off.

So if a 6-3 Republican majority Court starts to roll back decisions and legislation that 75% of the country is in favor of because of their outdated ideology then you better fucking believe that we're going to expand that Court.
Click to expand...

It's fucking nuts -- one of the primary purposes of the Supreme Court is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, and we are now so assbackwards that we have try to protect the majority from the tyranny of the minority. Great fucking system.
 
We don’t really need a Supreme Court. That’s a function of needing one body of justices living in one place because it was difficult to travel. Randomly select circuit court judges to serve on the highest court to make final rulings. Or let circuit court judges pick which cases they want to be on as a “Supreme Court.”
 
PhDeac said:
We don’t really need a Supreme Court. That’s a function of needing one body of justices living in one place because it was difficult to travel. Randomly select circuit court judges to serve on the highest court to make final rulings. Or let circuit court judges pick which cases they want to be on as a “Supreme Court.”
Click to expand...

Uhh, there's something to be said for knowing what panel of judges litigants are going to face. It provides certainty. Randomly having different judges decide cases provides very little certainty about what the law is going to be. Even between somewhat similar cases, you'd have different panels possibly making different distinctions because the identity of the panel varied from case to case. Basically, the opposite of what you want from a legal perspective.

And yeah, letting circuit judges pick which cases they want to be on? That would be really interesting when certain judges want to be on particular cases b/c they have a certain outcome they'd like to see.
 
Seems like those are problems with the legal system as a whole not one idea.
 
What's to stop a second term Trump administration from colluding with the Senate to pack the court (not "stack", lol) with an expanded number of young, unqualified ideologues?

They've already shown than "conservative" doesn't mean what they've long claimed it meant.
 
wakephan09 said:
What's to stop a second term Trump administration from colluding with the Senate to pack the court (not "stack", lol) with an expanded number of young, unqualified ideologues?

They've already shown than "conservative" doesn't mean what they've long claimed it meant.
Click to expand...
It would have to be passed by a majority of the House and Senate
 
wakephan09 said:
What's to stop a second term Trump administration from colluding with the Senate to pack the court (not "stack", lol) with an expanded number of young, unqualified ideologues?

They've already shown than "conservative" doesn't mean what they've long claimed it meant.
Click to expand...

Aside from what ChrisL said, not much advantage to this unless Roberts and one other justice develop a mind of their own and starting voting against conservatives. Better to leave it at 9 and pin the threat of an expanded court on the dems.
 
But you said it was strictly because he's a Democrat. Otherwise you know nothing about him.
 
PhDeac said:
But you said it was strictly because he's a Democrat. Otherwise you know nothing about him.
Click to expand...

No: what I said he is indicative and supportive of the Democratic platform, much that I disagree with.
 
But you don't know much about him.
 
I wonder if Cindy McCain for example has gone line by line through the democratic platform and decided that oops her entire GOP support was totally backwards. Or maybe she just wants to vote for who she thinks is better for the country than voting for laundry.
 
And 06, you are really putting that Wake degree to work, aren't you. Are you usually the smartest person in the room?
You know my "personal values" and "identity" without ever meeting me. Awesome.

Deacspop will just never vote for a Democrat. Being a Republican is part of his personal identity. It is one of his most cherished personal values. Doesn’t matter that the party doesn’t represent him anymore. He’ll excuse it all away and hopefully enjoy another Trump term while believing his conscience is clean. Doesn’t need to see Harrison’s platform, doesn’t need to talk to the person, just seeing the D next to the name is enough to know. And if that starts to waver, just make up some fake outrage like open borders or BLM Marxism.[/QUOTE]
 
Alright fine take out the cheap shots (or are they) about your personal values and tell us what part is inaccurate.

Your posts on this thread are that you’re unwilling to vote for a democrat solely because of the D next to their name. Even when the opposing candidate is the antithesis of your personal values.

Are there any situations in which you’d vote for a democrat? Sounds like no.
 
Yes they are cheap shots but not surprising where they came from.

Let's start by you showing everyone where I said anywhere, I wouldn't "vote for a democrat solely because of the D next to their name".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top