A
adrunkgerbil
Guest
They should be appointed, not elected.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
G
GFlem
Guest
Why exactly would a change from our current system be necessary?
7
7960
Guest
Why not?
J
Joe_Cool
Guest
We do need a way to get rid of shitty justices, though. I'd support a "keep or dump" election for justices, where you need a 2/3 majority to fire one.
O
Ozmar
Guest
Well the reason they are life appointments is a safeguard against any shmo who comes into office with the opinion that a justice is shitty. Can't just change things on the whim of whatever is en vogue at that particular time.
T
thekinggovernor
Guest
absolutely, 10 years is a good starting place
T
thekinggovernor
Guest
New York elects its Supreme Court justices to 14 year terms, get automatically retired at 70 and
it is an excellent system
it is an excellent system
R
rothbard
Guest
Sure there is. Judges can be impeached. Congress has authority over the Court system, they just refuse to act like they do.
3
|3illy the |<
Guest
Absolutely not.
C
convolutedmind
Guest
So, instead we need to deal with the mistakes of the past?
A
adrunkgerbil
Guest
What if you're elected at the age of 57
T
thekinggovernor
Guest
You can only be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, last time I checked being old and crazy wasn't against the law.
I have been saying for years that we need a Constitutional Amendment that further outlines the Judicial Branch of government.
I have been saying for years that we need a Constitutional Amendment that further outlines the Judicial Branch of government.
3
|3illy the |<
Guest
There's not supposed to be a manner for that. You're asking how we judge....a judge. The idea of the SUPREME court is that their judgment has been found to supercede all others when it comes to the law.
If you introduced a law that would pass judgment on the judges....the Supreme Court would just shoot it down.
The idea of permanent judges is that it lends credibility to their post while removing influence of the other branches.
If you introduced a law that would pass judgment on the judges....the Supreme Court would just shoot it down.
The idea of permanent judges is that it lends credibility to their post while removing influence of the other branches.
D
Desert Eagle
Guest
Pass a Constitutional Amendment, and I'd be kewl with a term limit.
Personally, I'd like to see a limit of 8 or 12 years ... 16 max.
They can do that now. That's what FDR did.
Personally, I'd like to see a limit of 8 or 12 years ... 16 max.
They can do that now. That's what FDR did.
O
Ozmar
Guest
It's an imperfect system: It's run by humans.
T
thekinggovernor
Guest
GTFO out 70, I think they review your competency and you can hang around for a few more years but that is it.
M
mover
Guest
Best summary is here
Basically, it's the best chance to maintain as independent a judiciary as possible.
Basically, it's the best chance to maintain as independent a judiciary as possible.
3
|3illy the |<
Guest
I've not actually seen a problem. Even with age...most justices step down when they start having health problems.
3
|3illy the |<
Guest
I'm not sure if this or term limits would be worse. They're both terrible ideas.
T
thekinggovernor
Guest
So no one can question the Judicial branch, yet you think it is the weakest one? That is illogical.
We have a system of checks and balances, and the Judicial branch currently has too much unchecked power.
You cannot "shoot down" a Constitutional Amendment.
We have a system of checks and balances, and the Judicial branch currently has too much unchecked power.
You cannot "shoot down" a Constitutional Amendment.