|
With term limits suddenly you have judges that need to keep their jobs. You'd see poo poo like the ACA case fail in court. Cases would suddenly only go up when you would be sure the judiciary would rule the way you want, and your interpretation of laws would bounce back and forth between Presidents.
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 17:29 |
|
|
Grapplejack posted:With term limits suddenly you have judges that need to keep their jobs. You'd see poo poo like the ACA case fail in court. Cases would suddenly only go up when you would be sure the judiciary would rule the way you want, and your interpretation of laws would bounce back and forth between Presidents. I agree, it's debatable if the no term limit thing works fully as intended but the alternative is a hell of a lot worse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:superficially defensible The GOP have politicized the court already. It would be nice if for once it was the Democrats raising the stakes instead of always trying to catch up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
Minesweep posted:RBG is going to croak before trump is out, so thats one more seat minimum lost Or she could live to be a Super Centarian. Nothing would push the GOP for a SCOTUS retirement age more I think, hah.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 06:52
|
|
|
RBG is 84 and in far better shape than anyone in my grandparents' generation was at that age (those who made it that long). She could easily have another decade in her and she sure as hell isn't going to give up her seat willingly when the GOP controls the entire government because she knows exactly what happens if/when a liberal justice is replaced with Right Wing rear end in a top hat Judge #390873908.Hieronymous Alloy posted:If Dems ever get broad control again, that's the Constitutional amendment we push. That's a waste of an amendment. If you're going to pass an amendment affecting the judiciary, pass one that bans public election of judges.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 10:57
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:That's a waste of an amendment. If you're going to pass an amendment affecting the judiciary, pass one that bans public election of judges. But I'm mad about Gorsuch right now! I want to push something that democratizes the courts more, not less, because more direct democracy is an unqualified good! There's no way this will backfire horribly on every issue I care deeply about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 12:21
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
I don't know how anyone can have read Dredd Scott or be in any way familiar with the history of SCOTUS in the 19th Century and claim that politicisation is a recent phenomena.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 12:43
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I don't know how anyone can have read Dredd Scott or be in any way familiar with the history of SCOTUS in the 19th Century and claim that politicisation is a recent phenomena. Wasnt that around the last time they stacked the court successfully too?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 13:33
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:With term limits suddenly you have judges that need to keep their jobs. You'd see poo poo like the ACA case fail in court. Cases would suddenly only go up when you would be sure the judiciary would rule the way you want, and your interpretation of laws would bounce back and forth between Presidents. That's not how term limits work - judges would only need to pander if they had multiple terms. Saying "a judge can only sit on this court for X years total" just makes turnover more predictable and eliminates the stupid age factor. As for the rest...where the hell have you been? The Court's interpretation already shifts between presidents, this would just make it do so more consistently. Judges are already chosen based on ideological bona fides. The Supreme Court has taken a far more prominent place in our government than anyone imagined when the Constitution was written, and the idea that interpretation of law would shift so wildly based on the composition of the Court was something I doubt they'd considered.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Bueno Papi posted:I can't see getting 38 states doing that. It's an easy braindead reform but ABORTION and every red or purple state's legislature goes running. Not that court packing solves anything long term either. Right, like a lot of other things, this only happens in a theoretical post Trump national Democratic wave.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:That packing the court would be an obvious power grab and pretty much indefensible on that axis, and that it would therefore enrage Republicans is actually a pretty big point in its favor. Same for removing Justices on the barest of pretenses. That's counter productive. You need a superficially defensible rationale. Look at Republican success tactics like Voter ID, etc. Spite works best when you give the spiteful a cover rationale, like "preventing voter fraud".
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:. That's too constructive and has no short term benefit. A retirement age would immediately force the retirement of hundreds of federal judges, allowing Democrats to appoint replacements. It also would guarantee a younger and thus less conservative court system going forward. Banning public election of judges doesn't do those things. I mean it would be a good idea but would it even work as a Constitutional amendment? That's a state level political decision. I'm honestly not sure if a federal constitutional amendment could do that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Banning public election of judges doesn't do those things. I mean it would be a good idea but would it even work as a Constitutional amendment? That's a state level political decision. I'm honestly not sure if a federal constitutional amendment could do that. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
 The constitution can do literally anything. That's why this gerrymandered statehouse sweep is so terrifying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
The supremacy clause says the constitution is #1. If you can get 2/3rds of the nation to sign off on it you can control things at the city level with an amendment. There is zero limit to the constitution's reach.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The supremacy clause says the constitution is #1. If you can get 2/3rds of the nation to sign off on it you can control things at the city level with an amendment. There is zero limit to the constitution's reach. Except the constitution's own limits, which is why my side gets pretty pissed when 5 judges get together to invent limits that aren't there and ignore those that are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:Except the constitution's own limits, which is why my side gets pretty pissed when 5 judges get together to invent limits that aren't there and ignore those that are. The constitution's self imposed limits do not matter when it comes to amendments, though, as those can change anything about the charter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
Article V restricts amendments from depriving states of their equal representation in the Senate, but there is nothing stopping a two-amendment combo that first re-writes Article V to remove the restriction and then fucks with the Senate. Or you could just give every state zero senators. That’s equal, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Article V restricts amendments from depriving states of their equal representation in the Senate, but there is nothing stopping a two-amendment combo that first re-writes Article V to remove the restriction and then fucks with the Senate. Or you could eliminate all powers of the Senate and vest them in Senate 2.0 with unequal representation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
One other good reason why SCOTUS judges are appointed for life is to guarantee their independence from outside influences. If judges were only appointed for say, 10 years, that means they would move on to another job afterwards, which would be a corrupting influence. Of course we still get the occasional 'ruling in favour of corporation my wife is involved in' but you can't have it all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
u brexit ukip it posted:One other good reason why SCOTUS judges are appointed for life is to guarantee their independence from outside influences. If judges were only appointed for say, 10 years, that means they would move on to another job afterwards, which would be a corrupting influence. "Senior status." Done.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Giving retired justices full salary for life wouldn’t be a great burden on the republic’s coffers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Or you could eliminate all powers of the Senate The regional governors will keep them in line.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Giving retired justices full salary for life wouldn’t be a great burden on the republic’s coffers. Nah. You don't make them retire. You give them senior status. They're still available to handle preliminary issues, sit on circuits or districts that need a hand, etc, they just aren't part of the 9 person group that decides cases. (Or you allow them to sit, by rotation or random lot, when one of the active justices has to recuse so you still get 9.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The supremacy clause says the constitution is #1. If you can get 2/3rds of the nation to sign off on it you can control things at the city level with an amendment. There is zero limit to the constitution's reach. 3/4ths.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Giving retired justices full salary for life wouldn’t be a great burden on the republic’s coffers. People with great power and influence that retire don't tend to just do nothing afterwards. Even with a lifetime pension at 100% of their salary they'd go sit on boards or something just to keep the feeling of control. Unless you're proposing "18 years with a guillotine at the end" in some sort of judicial dystopia, I don't think it would work out the way you want.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Harik posted:People with great power and influence that retire don't tend to just do nothing afterwards. Even with a lifetime pension at 100% of their salary they'd go sit on boards or something just to keep the feeling of control. Logan's Bench
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That's too constructive and has no short term benefit. A retirement age would immediately force the retirement of hundreds of federal judges, allowing Democrats to appoint replacements. It also would guarantee a younger and thus less conservative court system going forward. A federal constitutional amendment can do literally anything except deprive a state of equal representation in the Senate. A constitutional amendment could abolish states altogether if it wanted. Plenty of amendments interfere with state-level decisions and there is nothing preventing it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
The Article of Confederation provided no means of replacement. The government of the United States has been unlawful since 13 September 1788.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The Article of Confederation provided no means of replacement. Article 13 permitted amendments, provided all state legislatures agreed. The Constitution was only unlawful under the Articles of Confederation between when it was in force after the 9th state's ratification (June 21, 1788) and when Rhode Island finally knuckled under and ratified it (May 21, 1790).
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Right, like a lot of other things, this only happens in a theoretical post Trump national Democratic wave. If the Democrats have 2/3rds of both parts of Congress and control of 38 states there's much better things to put through than a retirement age and it won't really matter if they have a justification for what they're doing because the Republican party will have effectively ceased to exist. The only way to deal with the Supreme Court if Republicans manage to get another nomination is an expansion of the Court to retake the Garland seat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Giving retired justices full salary for life wouldn’t be a great burden on the republic’s coffers. "Surely their lust for wealth and power will be sated eventually" I said, as I kept shoveling money into Goldman Sachs' solid gold furnace.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Article V restricts amendments from depriving states of their equal representation in the Senate, but there is nothing stopping a two-amendment combo that first re-writes Article V to remove the restriction and then fucks with the Senate. Minus two senators for every state. Bills and confirmations only pass if the majority of the Senate hates it. E: no lying allowed
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
final destination no items fox news only
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
The Senate having equal representation per state is fine, the problem is there are so many dumb tiny states. Merge like ten of them together to make one big flyover state, merge New England as well cause fair's fair, and presto suddenly the Senate isn't quite so dominated by rural interests.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:The Senate having equal representation per state is fine, the problem is there are so many dumb tiny states. Merge like ten of them together to make one big flyover state, merge New England as well cause fair's fair, and presto suddenly the Senate isn't quite so dominated by rural interests. Lol good luck trying to get any other state to claim New Jersey.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The supremacy clause says the constitution is #1. If you can get 2/3rds of the nation to sign off on it you can control things at the city level with an amendment. There is zero limit to the constitution's reach. Yeah, that's what I get for posting when I've just gotten up from a nap. It still strikes me as odd though. Is there anywhere else in the Constitution where specific forms of state level government are mandated?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 17:29 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, that's what I get for posting when I've just gotten up from a nap. It still strikes me as odd though. Is there anywhere else in the Constitution where specific forms of state level government are mandated? Yes, actually; quote:The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 03:17
|
|