Listening to Arguments at the SCOTUS

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

As I listen to the Q&A portion I have come away with the belief that Justice Breyer is a sarcastic jerk and Sotomayor is an interrupter and does not wait for answers. She seems to only want to grandstand. These judges are only human beings and have all the faults of any other person. They demonstrates why we should have a term limit on the Supreme Court. I think at most they should serve for 15 years. I would even suggest that 10 years would be a better term.

We are doomed as a civilization.

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

We are doomed as a civilization.

Dang dood, if you're going to say that, at least give us a link...

[bytebear]

I wish they would just be constitutional.

[Traveler]

I believe that to understand the Supreme Court we need to understand the Nation's founders intent.  It is intended that there are check and balances between the major branches (President, Congress and the Supreme Court).  The concept was the Justices of the Supreme Court are first appointed by the President and then secondly approved by the Senate.   Originally  it was intended that the Senate was to represent the states.  This was changed because there was too much corruption with powers within states.  But it has been corrupted again with more campaign funds coming from outside a state than from the citizens of a state.

All the current problems aside - it was believed by the founders that a life long appointment to the Supreme Court would or should cut political ties to preconceived positions of political parties.  

I somewhat agree but rather than term limits as considered by the op @Emmanuel Goldstein that a justice could be removed by a 2/3 majority of the Senate.

 

The Traveler

[askandanswer]

Just by way of information, in Australia, I think the consitution mandates a compulsory retirement age of 70 for  the judges in our highest court.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

On 11/13/2020 at 11:25 AM, Traveler said:

I believe that to understand the Supreme Court we need to understand the Nation's founders intent.  It is intended that there are check and balances between the major branches (President, Congress and the Supreme Court).  The concept was the Justices of the Supreme Court are first appointed by the President and then secondly approved by the Senate.   Originally  it was intended that the Senate was to represent the states.  This was changed because there was too much corruption with powers within states.  But it has been corrupted again with more campaign funds coming from outside a state than from the citizens of a state.

All the current problems aside - it was believed by the founders that a life long appointment to the Supreme Court would or should cut political ties to preconceived positions of political parties.  

I somewhat agree but rather than term limits as considered by the op @Emmanuel Goldstein that a justice could be removed by a 2/3 majority of the Senate.

 

The Traveler

Yes, the only problem is now we have a politicized court system. They have shown repeatedly that they cannot be trusted to make judgements based on the original intent of the founders of the republic. They and the Congress need some restrictions placed upon them by the Amendment process. If they cannot control themselves, the Congress and Court, then we need to control them through a convention of States. We need to force amendments into the constitution without their input.

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Yes, the only problem is now we have a politicized court system. They have shown repeatedly that they cannot be trusted to make judgements based on the original intent of the founders of the republic. They and the Congress need some restrictions placed upon them by the Amendment process. If they cannot control themselves, the Congress and Court, then we need to control them through a convention of States. We need to force amendments into the constitution without their input.

I am not concerned about elements of our government becoming political as I am that as a nation we are rejecting the sacred covenants - like the changing of the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman to whatever it is that is desired for someone to marry.

 

The Traveler