Term limits on supreme court judges?

  • Thread starter Thread starter |3illy the |&lt
  • Start date Start date
3

|3illy the |&lt

Guest
Well I could regurgitate Hamilton and provide a bunch of his quotes. I'm sure Publius could too. But why would you seek what we say, rather than Madison, Jay, and Hamilton? They drafted the constitution and explained the reasoning in that series of letters.

You're asking for a second hand account when the primary reasoning has been provided.

Plus, Hamilton is much more beautiful in writing than what any of us would type.
 
That makes sense. It would just create more instability in our government.

Just out of curiosity, who do you think is a shitty judge?

The problem I think we would run into is how do you define "shitty" and it would essentially cause the same problems if there were term limits.
 
Still chosen by the president, and they could decide whether or not to keep the justice or pick a replacement.

What do you think?
 
Im not gonna read all that right now. I just dont see what the problem is with elections plus life appointments.
 
Yup, and that makes the one ruling, Marbury v. Madison, where the Supreme Court usurped power that the Constitution NEVER gave it, the most destructive event in this country. I've been saying that for decades now, and I will continue to say it.
 
I don't think we really need to define who is shitty or what shitty means. If 2/3 of the people vote to remove a justice, then we've found "shitty" without having to define it.
 
Your argument is an anecdote, it does not have any merit. Mine is grounded in fact.
 
Well, I don't normally agree with federalists, it's like telling a Christian to read the Koran. And that writing isn't beautiful, it's convoluted. I didn't enjoy reading federalist papers in history class and I still don't. If there are particular arguments you'd like to hijack from them, then use those, in your own words.

It shouldn't take more than 3 sentences to make a claim.
 
Hamilton says in 76 the following....


Bringing up two points.

1) It's not uncommon for appointments to be made rather than elections. Otherwise you'd constantly have elections. So appointed officials are the result of a need for people to not constantly be preoccupied with the process. Though with SC Justices it suffices to say these are not frequent.

The later point I think is of better merit.

2) That positions selected by one wise man are easier (no frivilous debating like the congress, or politicking) and they result in better reputation. Mainly, you don't want people voting against Judges being appointed. It tarnishes their reputation and calls into question the legitimacy of their role. If a judge gets 48% of the vote...it just looks bad. Further when introduced into the political process...there will inevitably be mud slinging. Which is not something we desire for the positions of the supreme court. Their members we hold to the highest legal and moral standards (above those of mere politicians). We seek their wise judgment to display the way law should be interpreted. We don't need people questioning their legitimacy due to votes. And we don't need people questioning their integrity because of what they saw on FOX News and Glenn Beck from a campaign.
 
Well then I don't think any argument anyone will make will be calming to your question.

The reason why is pretty explicitly stated by Hamilton. If you'd like to take a different view then you could call into question part of his particular reasoning.
 
I have pointed to the problem, you disregarded it. You believe that elderly people near death are perfectly fine to be Justices.
 
ok first, that's a POTENTIAL problem. has it ACTUALLY been a problem?

second, "elderly people near death" doesn't mean their faculties are compromised. they're not climbing ladders or chasing people through the woods. their entire job is to read and think and read and think some more. what part of "elderly people near death" doesn't allow that?

if they're *incapable* of doing the job...like if the guy can be certified to be suffering from some kind of dementia, I'd be for the ability to remove him. but (going back to "first" above) please show me when in the past that's been necessary.
 
Sounds great when a president you like is in power. In reality when the government changes every 2 years, not so good. I'd love to have given President Bush the power to fire Stevens, Breyer, Souter, and Ginsburg. But that would also give Obama the power to fire Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy.

When you try to make sweeping changes to the government and the constitution, you can't think about the guy you like. You have to think about the next guy, who you may not like.

Somebody once said "Give a good man great powers, and crooks grab his job".
 
So what is the manner for:
1. testing Judges for their capability in performing their job?
2. removing them if they are incapable?

I can tell you from personal experience that there are Judges on the Federal Circuit who's best days are behind them and they should be retired. However there is no mechanism to do so.
 
Back
Top