PDA

View Full Version : SCOTUS Judges



Yote
06-16-2008, 12:03 PM
I was mowing the grass this morning and thinking of the upcoming election and how important it is with the appointment of supreme court judges, and it hit me. Why aren't they elected by the people? Even at the local level, there are judges that must run for office and be elected by the people so why aren't these guys? They are making decisions that affect us all, and if they make decisions we don't like, and they do, then we should have the right to vote them out like we do other decision makers. What are y'alls thoughts on this.

I've never considered it before but I just asked myself that question this morning and couldn't answer it.

tylerw02
06-16-2008, 12:07 PM
Because we have a republic and the mob isn't intelligent enough to do so. Apparently, the last few presidents haven't done a good job either.

Paul Fielder
06-16-2008, 01:53 PM
....did the ole bait & switcheroo on their beliefs after nominated too......sigh.

pf

Mr. D
06-16-2008, 06:34 PM
I was mowing the grass this morning and thinking of the upcoming election and how important it is with the appointment of supreme court judges, and it hit me. Why aren't they elected by the people? Even at the local level, there are judges that must run for office and be elected by the people so why aren't these guys? They are making decisions that affect us all, and if they make decisions we don't like, and they do, then we should have the right to vote them out like we do other decision makers. What are y'alls thoughts on this.

I've never considered it before but I just asked myself that question this morning and couldn't answer it.

I'll give you answer an "objective" history or political science teacher will give you which likely won't be appreciated by many on this forum.

The reason the Supreme Court is appointed for life rather than elected is to keep their decisions free of the poorly thought out and temporary mob rages of the public. The Founding Fathers wanted only one consideration in their rules that is the interpretation of the Constitution itself, not threats of politicians and the public. What if the right after 9/11 the good voters could have replaced the members of the Supreme Court they thought would support suspending parts of the Bill of rights to protect the country? Would they have done it with a long view of preserving the Constitution or out of fear and anger? (Actually the "Patriot Act accomplished some of that!)

Stacking the Supreme Court by trying to make them all conservative or liberal is a bad idea when done by Bush or FDR. Luckily, many appointed because they promise to be a clone of the president appointing them seem to then to rise to their own views based on the Constitution rather than the conservative or liberal views of the president who appointed them. That hasn't always worked, but that's what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

Both the Senate (with it's six year term) and the Supreme Court were established to temper the public acting wildly out of fear and anger as they often do. Hopefully it allows some of our leaders to vote their conscience instead of being threatened by replacement by a public whipped into anger by the President, PETA, AIPAC (The Israel Lobby) The Sierra Club, or even the NRA! The are supposed to keep their heads, look at the Constitution and not be swayed by temporary foul winds.

Phil Deese
06-16-2008, 08:04 PM
This maybe one area we agree.....believe it or not!! The problem is that we have to many politicans and individuals that look at the constitution as a "Living Document" that should be changed everytime there is something in it that we disagree with. Most people don't have an understanding of how our government is suppose to work....and really could care less as long as their needs are satisfied.

Yote
06-16-2008, 08:39 PM
But what happens when the judges look at it as a living document and reak havoc on it? All they need it the majority. That's the point I was trying to make. They are there for life! It gives "we the people" no say so.

Wilbur
06-17-2008, 02:51 AM
But what happens when the judges look at it as a living document and reak havoc on it? All they need it the majority. That's the point I was trying to make. They are there for life! It gives "we the people" no say so.

That's the reason the 2nd amendment is of such importance................as if we would actually do something............

Talk is so very, very cheap.

Mr. D
06-17-2008, 03:48 AM
Ok, I'll stick my neck out "yet" again and hope you guys think about whether what I'm saying makes any sense, instead of getting just getting angry! :eek:


To only enforce what is spelled out in concrete language in the Constitution is not what the Founding Fathers ever intended. It misses the beauty of the document.

The Founding Fathers were wise enough to create the Constitution as "living document" intended to put forth both specific limitations and powers as well as broad concepts to be interpreted based on a changing history. They intended concrete limitation on power plus general concepts to be interpreted based on the changing times. A “Living Document” does not mean you invent new language to educated liberals. It means the Founding Fathers knew everything could not be spelled out concretely because of a changing future they could not imagine. If every word was simplistic and concrete there would be little need for a Supreme Court to exist to interpret the Constitution in the first place! Privacy in 1781 didn’t mention laptop computers and cell phones so we have to “interpret” what the Founding Fathers meant by "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects". Many far right conservatives try to narrowly interpret only the concrete words the like rather than the intent of the Constitution to support their ideology! That's every bit as much trying to erase the Constitution from the Supreme Court Bench as as is the over the extending of original intent by the Supreme Court.

Based on that concrete, simplistic thinking, movies and TV programs could be censored if they contain ideas that offend the current government. A Hollywood movie, TV program, piece of art, or a cartoon without a caption were not clearly identified by the Founding Fathers as "speech" or the "press", but the Supreme Court has wisely interpreted the terms speech and press as being that period's methods of expressing dissent! It does not define "Free Speech" as sending truckloads of cash to our politicians and receiving Government favors and access as we all see it today.

So if we interpret the Constitution like it's a dumb, dead, rigidly written block of concrete then it won't interfere with those in power either Liberal or Conservative! Then all the important issues can be left to the magic of the free market to sort out as the Robber Barons did until government stepped in! Does the Free Market lovingly take care of the little man without interpeting the Constitution? Not hardly! We sure don't want big government interference in slavery, the vote for women, air quality, water pollution, strip mining, oil companies record profits during record gas prices, Haliburton, Enron, drug and medical insurance company public rip offs, or the building of permanent bases in Iraq and Afghanistan when we are "supposedly" not occupying it permanently. None of those were spelled out in concrete language by the Constitution. The power of government to affect these things was interpreted as part of a "living Constitution". If it was part of the concrete language it would have been part of our law in 1781. The 14th Amendment only makes the point "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Supreme Court had to interpret what that language meant in thousands of different cases! When state laws said that Black men had to have qualifications that were not applied to White men those words had to be interpreted to provide equal rights.

It's interesting how many conservatives want limited government and concrete Constitutional language until they want to use the government to enforce their own personal opinions, beliefs, religions, or to inpose U.S. corporate interests on U.S. citizens and 3rd world peoples all over the world! Then using that big, bad old U.S. Government to enforce their personal desires on others becomes constitutional. Ask the 3rd world countries and Terry Schiavo's husband about that! Big government is just fine when it furthers conservative opinions and business corporate agendas and terribly wrong when it supports liberal ideas.

Now don't yell! Think about what I've said first! :eek:

Mr. D
06-17-2008, 04:06 AM
That's the reason the 2nd amendment is of such importance................as if we would actually do something............

Talk is so very, very cheap.

Wibur,

Don't ever assume shooters like myself, that don't oppose each and every gun regulation, won't be there locked and loaded when they try to take away sporting and hobby firearms. I can get any firearm I want with the hassle of paperwork and some fees. I also clearly realize that what is legitimate gun regulation is a honest disagreement between shooters and I'm always listening to your side of the argument to decide what issues to join the fight on. I understand how shooters feel about the stupid assault rifle regulations even thought I don't want one myself. That is out of politician and non shooter ignorance.

You're right, "talk is so very, very cheap", so I don't rant about regulations until I'm ready to do more that just talk. I had to go through a hassle to get my last rifle, but I got it and can enjoy it while a felon would have had to break the law to get it instead of just throwing down some hundreds from a drug deal at a gun show. All regulation is a pain to the honest shooter, but so are most laws to a person that believes in the Golden Rule! I wish I could build a quality house without the tens of thousands dishonest builders and greedy cities put on me! That's life!

One of these days they will tell me I can't have a firearm that presents no real public threat in my mind and I'll do more than talk, talk, talk.

The discussions are getting more civil, but keep cracking the whip to keep us civil! You have a great forum!

Well, have I been kicked off yet???? :D :D

Bill Wynne
06-17-2008, 04:51 AM
The discussions are getting more civil, but keep cracking the whip to keep us civil! You have a great forum!

Well, have I been kicked off yet???? :D :D

Not hardly! You are beginning to make sense.:)

Concho Bill

Rusty Carr
06-17-2008, 08:42 AM
The founding fathers were indeen geniuses, and provided a means of changing the constitution. It's called the amendment process, and it was meant to be difficult and unwieldy for the very reason that it should not be up to politician appointed judge. The example you use, about what type of guns should be restricted without protest from gun owners, is a perfect example of how the anti's hope to accomplish their goal. Every attempt to legislate out "assault weapons" ended up including semi auto shotguns, or even in some cases pump shotguns, every attempt at "sniper rifles" includes the 338 Mag I am taking to Africa, every ban on "cop killer bullets" ends up targeting all kinds of hunting ammo. No, the constitution IS a living document, within closely guarded means, not something to be changed with each passing administration. Thanks, Rusty Carr

beemanbeme
06-17-2008, 09:30 AM
I daresay "stacking it" would be bad regardless of who did it, wouldn't you say, if the intent was sinister. Except, of course, in the touchy-feely 60's. When a court, both Surpreme and Federal, was created, not to follow the constitution but to "make up" for past inequities, both real and imagined, and to engineer social changes and experiments dreamed up by the Berkley types on the rare days when they could focus their eyes. Changes and experiments dreamed up with the help of Dr Timothy and insulated by the space bubble of academia.
Most of us have gotten past that. Have grown up. We realize our errors in judgement. Others, however, still long for the time of free love and plentiful mind-altering drugs which made everything kewl and refuse to grow up. Refuse to mature. Have stayed hidden in the time capsule of academia. And only venture out to aggrevate those of us that tend the flocks, grow the crops, and see to the well-being of our country. ;)

It's all a conspiracy and Bush is right at the center of it. Don'tchaknow.

Mr. D
06-17-2008, 01:20 PM
I Others, however, still long for the time of free love and plentiful mind-altering drugs which made everything kewl and refuse to grow up. Refuse to mature. Have stayed hidden in the time capsule of academia. And only venture out to aggrevate those of us that tend the flocks, grow the crops, and see to the well-being of our country. ;)

It's all a conspiracy and Bush is right at the center of it. Don'tchaknow.

Don't lump all us 60's students together as if we were the same. I was anti war, but also a Staff Sgt. in the Guard with short hair and no flowers. Most weren't hippies even though Hippies filled made the news!

Paul Fielder
06-17-2008, 01:49 PM
That's the reason the 2nd amendment is of such importance................as if we would actually do something............

Talk is so very, very cheap.

....but Votes aren't.

I would rather talk the talk and vote for the guy who will place a SCOTUS to keep me from walking the walk. That 'doing something' you refer to is scary stuff.

pf

Paul Fielder
06-17-2008, 02:13 PM
I had to go through a hassle to get my last rifle, but I got it and can enjoy it while a felon would have had to break the law to get it instead of just throwing down some hundreds from a drug deal at a gun show.


......where all felons go to aquire their guns.....sigh.

Do you not attend and enjoy gun shows or are all the felons taking them over in California or does California even have any gun shows?? Please explain this comment.....I hit every gun show that comes along. I get to see some neat collectables that I normally would not get to fondle at the local gun shop or Academy.

You would think with all your left coast gun laws in place there would not be a single firearm related felony.....just like in DC where they are illegal all together. Sure works for them.

You should not have to go through ANY hassle to get your gun D.....nor do we need any more laws. Everything is covered. Why is your state so different....they are not stopping the criminals with all the extra laws compared to Texas / NY or DC??

pf

Rusty Carr
06-17-2008, 03:55 PM
D. my friend, and I'm serious about that, you mention as soon as they try to take a gun that in your mind, poses no public threat, then you'll do something.
I don't know what it takes to get it into your mind, but they are trying to do just that right now. I don't know if they have dove shoots where you live, but here in Ga., it's a tradition, and I am sure that way more than half the participants are using semi-autos. Please, please, show me the difference between their definition of assault weapon, and the semi-auto shotgun. Look again at the post I put in this thread, and tell me you don't see legitimate sporting arms and ammo on the endangered list. As I have already said, if you don't consider your beautiful, accurate .17 with a good scope, to be a sniper rifle, you are hiding your head in the sand. Not trying to stir up anything, but I don't believe that anti-gunners will settle for anything less than total confiscation. Your own senators are on record as saying if the votes were there, she would do it now. Thanks, Rusty

Mr. D
06-17-2008, 06:17 PM
D. my friend, and I'm serious about that, you mention as soon as they try to take a gun that in your mind, poses no public threat, then you'll do something.
I don't know what it takes to get it into your mind, but they are trying to do just that right now. I don't know if they have dove shoots where you live, but here in Ga., it's a tradition, and I am sure that way more than half the participants are using semi-autos. Please, please, show me the difference between their definition of assault weapon, and the semi-auto shotgun. Look again at the post I put in this thread, and tell me you don't see legitimate sporting arms and ammo on the endangered list. As I have already said, if you don't consider your beautiful, accurate .17 with a good scope, to be a sniper rifle, you are hiding your head in the sand. Not trying to stir up anything, but I don't believe that anti-gunners will settle for anything less than total confiscation. Your own senators are on record as saying if the votes were there, she would do it now. Thanks, Rusty

We do have dove hunting and I do have a semi auto shotgun. Thanks for the heads up and I will keep an eye on how the legislation is going as well as the candidates.

Thanks, Mr D

Flash The Cash
06-18-2008, 07:12 AM
I was mowing the grass this morning and thinking of the upcoming election and how important it is with the appointment of supreme court judges, and it hit me. Why aren't they elected by the people?
Read the Constitution, dude. It explains how Supreme Court Justices are placed on the Court.

Flash The Cash
06-18-2008, 07:13 AM
Because we have a republic and the mob isn't intelligent enough to do so. Apparently, the last few presidents haven't done a good job either. I thought is was because of what the Constitution says on the matter...

Flash The Cash
06-18-2008, 07:17 AM
The problem is that we have to many politicans and individuals that look at the constitution as a "Living Document" Does that mean you believe we should give Louisiana back and abolish the Air Force?

Flash The Cash
06-18-2008, 07:19 AM
But what happens when the judges look at it as a living document... What happens if they don't?

Phil Deese
06-18-2008, 07:21 AM
Enjoy them while you can.....your bed buddies have their eyes on them!!

Flash The Cash
06-18-2008, 07:43 AM
That's the reason the 2nd amendment is of such importance................as if we would actually do something............

Talk is so very, very cheap. The 2nd Amendment is crap. However, it doesn't matter, because, with, or without it, the government was granted no power whatsoever over the keeping an bearing of arms, unless it arises under one of the enumerated powers.