Trump is a good speaker
. But not all conservatives are dumb.
Not everyone on the other side is the enemy.
What if the general public wanted to deny blacks from voting? Or bald people. Should the judges reflect that?
Um, no. No he’s not a good speaker. He’s good at fear mongering and scapegoating minorities
If the constitution says that black people or bald people can’t vote, then the judges should reflect that.
Yeah, that’s the point. The court should reflect the attitude of the general public, that’s the whole point of a republic.
That’s what I mean basically. He’s a good Sophist and demagogue, so he appeals to dumb voters.
Exactly, so the judges should reflect the law, not the people’s opinions.That’s not what you said earlier.
You need to stop being so polarizing. Many Trump supporters are MAGA morons. Trump is a good speaker and so he appeals to dumb voters, that’s why he’s so good. But not all conservatives are dumb. This is why we are so divided as a nation. Not everyone on the other side is the enemy.
If you read about what I wrote about wedge issues, then you realize how people like IWrA make it impossible to resolve those wedge issues.
MAGA MORONS" is a great example of the kinds of strawmen used to perpetuate wedge issues for eternity.
He’s a good Sophist and demagogue, so he appeals to dumb voters.
he seems more genuine than his opponents,
He will soon be gone.
But the strawmans will continue,
Hell, they even called Romney a dog killer
Exactly, it shouldn’t be random. It should reflect the attitude of the public.
Exactly, so the judges should reflect the law, not the people’s opinions.
Well that’s what’s supposed to happen in a pretty black and white situation, but abortion is anything but.
Judges will have different opinions on how to interpret the constitution on that issue
and so you should load the court with justices that will interpret it one way, when 62% of people interpret it the other way.
Ya, you read the Federalist Papers, um no. No you did not.
what is your proposal ?
It doesn't mention abortion as a right, it does mention life as a right which can only be surrendered by committing a crime.
If you can (and we can't) stack the court with people who can objectively interpret the law that would be what we ought to be doing.This supreme court is doing better than previous ones, but far from perfect.
It doesn't mention abortion as a right, it does mention life as a right which can only be surrendered by committing a crime.But the question is, does a Zygote count as a person?
Doctors still disagree about this.
Sure, it’s alive, but it’s not really conscious the way that you and me are.
It’s more of a jumble of cells.
If it was counted as a person, then it’s right to life would absolutely trump the mothers right of choice, but it’s still not clear if that’s true.
If you can (and we can't) stack the court with people who can objectively interpret the law that would be what we ought to be doing.This supreme court is doing better than previous ones, but far from perfect.But no person can perfectly interpret the law.
You need a wide array of different perspectives
and this amendment will help to achieve that. Currently, we don’t have that.
Term limits. Maybe not 18 years, that’s pretty short, but it’s still better than rolling the dice for when the justices will die or resign.
What’s the gist of what Madison had to say against term limits? That it would politicize justices more?
This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.''2 And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.
There is yet a further and a weightier reason for the permanency of the judicial offices, which is deducible from the nature of the qualifications they require. It has been frequently remarked, with great propriety, that a voluminous code of laws is one of the inconveniences necessarily connected with the advantages of a free government. To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them. Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges. And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge. These considerations apprise us, that the government can have no great option between fit character; and that a temporary duration in office, which would naturally discourage such characters from quitting a lucrative line of practice to accept a seat on the bench, would have a tendency to throw the administration of justice into hands less able, and less well qualified, to conduct it with utility and dignity. In the present circumstances of this country, and in those in which it is likely to be for a long time to come, the disadvantages on this score would be greater than they may at first sight appear; but it must be confessed, that they are far inferior to those which present themselves under the other aspects of the subject.
I suppose that’s fair. I’m not mad about the rulings tho, I mad about Trump abusing his power and appointing 3 justices. I didn’t think this was really possible until he did it, so I saw no reason to safeguard against it. Now that we know it is a problem though, we should do something about it.
Okay, it’s not an abuse of power, I overreacted, but it’s still not a good thing that some president end up with more appointees than others.
...should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind...
Some type of term limit or guarantee that each POTUS has the opportunity to appoint the same number of justices is a good idea but I don’t see how you could possibly do it in a fair way at this point.
