edlib Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 It's a risky strategy... but if the trend toward uncovering various scandals in the current administration continues over the next couple of months, ESPECIALLY if there is a Rove indictment (or some other revelation at that scale,) there WILL be a nationwide backlash to "vote the bums out" as we've recently seen in Palestine and Canada. The Democrats won't need a particularly gripping message at that point... just being a different choice will be enough. And I find all this talk of "Taking back the court" to be exceedingly ironic: Aren't the majority of the Justices, even before Alito, Republican appointees? Only 2 are from a Democrat presidency, if I remember correctly. Seems that a conservative appointment isn't a guarantee of conservative judgements... I'll laugh my ass off if in a year or two Alito starts to lean moderate to left like O'Connor. I doubt it will happen, but it sure would be sweet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffSaberist Posted February 1, 2006 Author Share Posted February 1, 2006 rccar - To the contrary, most Dems were furious because Alito did answer the questions, but not in a partisan way. That's the crux. The Dems are pissed because Alito never took a stance other than to compare Amendment X versus Supreme Court Case Y and he showed how he'd take these and others into consideration... but he never said anything political. That is why I admire him as a judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 The Democrats won't need a particularly gripping message at that point... just being a different choice will be enough. Boy i hope not. I might lean more to the democrat side than the republicans, but if they take a strategy of just "not being the other guy" again then i'll be pretty disgusted. (and it'll probably backfire on them like it did with kerry). Of course, in today's climate where taking ANY stance on an issue opens you up to a huge ammount of scrutiny and risk, its understandable that most politicians are reluctant to state their case. But it really shouldn't be that way. They should just say what they believe in, and why... but then they should also be given the opportunity to make reasonable changes in their opinion based on new information without being crucified as indecisive and weak. -- So the court is fillled with republican appointees? That hardly sounds fair or sensible... it seems to me that the more i hear about how the supreme court appointments work the less i like it. Of the top of my head, better system = every 5 years all senior judges vote for the best judges to be on the supeme court. They get the 20 top votes. Political parties have 1 veto for every 10% of the vote they got. If a veto is used then the next person on the voting results list gets bumped in. For any case a random selection of judges is drawn from the remaining pool. Supreme Court - The Gathering Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 ... but if they take a strategy of just "not being the other guy" again then I'll be pretty disgusted. So the court is filled with republican appointees? That hardly sounds fair or sensible... it seems to me that the more i hear about how the supreme court appointments work the less i like it. Well I hope the Dems solidify a good message that people can get behind... but if the Republicans self-destruct spectacularly, then I really don't think the message they manage to come up with will matter all that much. People will vote for change more than the messages. History shows that to be true. And right now, if I remember correctly, the Supreme Court, with Alito, is also a majority devout Roman Catholic. I think he makes #5. It really shouldn't matter... but it does seem a bit odd to me that's the way it's worked out. I would think that a good mix of different backgrounds would be a good thing on the court... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gray Master Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Greetings and Salutations. I am Gray Master. I have been around this planet a long time and in many directions. (many times self reversed.) I have seen changes to the Liberal side and Changes to the Conservative. The law and politcs do NOT go hand-in-hand. The founding fathers of the United States saw clearly that opinions and votes can and do change with the flowing of the breeze or the ebb and flow of tides. This is one reason why they saw fit to appoint the judges that have final say as to whether a law is Constitutional or violates the Constitution is a lifetime appointment. They are then not subject to political pressure of those who MAY loose their position based on the opinions of the day. The push of the Democrats in the Senate to attempt to force Alito and Roberts to answer questions on one issue - abortion for the sake of this discussion - is not within the authority of the Senate. Their sole CONSTITUTIONAL role is Advice and Consent. Not to pre-determine HOW a justice will rule on that issue. Roe v. Wade is considered settled law. That is to say, the law that allows abortion does not violate the consitution. Should another law be passed that limited the use of abortion to, say, preserving the life of the mother, may or may not violate the consitution. Before this issue would even come to the Supreme Court, these laws would have to be passed by the representatives of the citizens passing these laws. That issue may never come up. As for Alito being a devout Roman Catholic as an issue. LOL So is Ted Kennedy, and the last time I heard, he has not become an anit-abortionaist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffSaberist Posted February 1, 2006 Author Share Posted February 1, 2006 Welcome to the forums, Gray Master! Nice points, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 As for Alito being a devout Roman Catholic as an issue. LOL So is Ted Kennedy, and the last time I heard, he has not become an anit-abortionaist. Never said he was. I just pointed it out as an interesting trend. The cynic in me feels the conservative factions in this country are probably picking Catholics for the courts in the hopes that their faith will dictate which way they will decide on that particular issue... but I admit that I have absolutely no evidence to back up that belief. It's just a gut feeling at this point, and could just be an odd coincidence. But, as I said, I am a cynic on these types of things, and experience has shown me that very little happens in political circles at that level for no reason. My best guess is that it's a deliberate attempt to sway Court opinions in a certain direction. It might fail... but that doesn't seem to stop them from trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 But good points tho. Though the appointing of people for life does lead to the possibility of imbalance depending on who gets to do the appointing when people die - which i guess is how they ended up with so many appointments by one party.. judges all happened to die at times that party was in power. What would happen (in theory) if all the justices got blown up tomorrow? Would bush get to appoint an entire set at once? Still, the extraction from having to worry about political favour is a good idea... its jsut that by allowing the nominations to be by the president it appears to politicise the process from the very beginning. Every democrat is suspicious of ANYONE bush nominates, as every republican would be suspicious of everyone a democrat nominated. I still think it should be up to the judges themselves to decide who is the most senior and most able, and then the politicians might get a veto occasionally. ------- Maybe i'll modify my system so appointments are for life (or retirement), but the replacement gets picked from a shortlist voted on by senior judges.. and parties get vetoes.. but without knowing who the next option will be. (so they would be reluctant to veto someone without good reason as the next person might be even less to their liking). Since it turns out that no part of the working of the court is in the constitution, in theory its possible to change the court to anything we like... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffSaberist Posted February 2, 2006 Author Share Posted February 2, 2006 What would happen (in theory) if all the justices got blown up tomorrow? Would bush get to appoint an entire set at once? Well, someone has to do it... nobody else can. But the chances of that happening ore remote at best. Still, the extraction from having to worry about political favour is a good idea... its jsut that by allowing the nominations to be by the president it appears to politicise the process from the very beginning. Every democrat is suspicious of ANYONE bush nominates, as every republican would be suspicious of everyone a democrat nominated. Sadly, that's true. Partisan paranoia is always present. Though in the end, even hard-core liberals were supporting Alito. So that may be the start of a new trend. Let's hope so, anyway. I'm willing to vote for a liberal justice if he appears fair in his judgements, and his past is not littered with anti-war activism like Cindy Sheens, and doesn't politicise war ala Kerry, etc... I still think it should be up to the judges themselves to decide who is the most senior and most able, and then the politicians might get a veto occasionally. The only problem with that is that you might get a 'domino effect' causing the entire court to switch to one side. Despite what some of you may like to think, that is not true of today. Since it turns out that no part of the working of the court is in the constitution, in theory its possible to change the court to anything we like... A valid point, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 I think we actually lucked out with the supreme court justices, all things considered. Roberts looks like he will actually try to stick to the letter of the law, rather than his own person opinion, which I think will prove extremely useful as the Chief Justice. Alito seems a bit more to the right than I'd like, but that's alright. We definitely wouldn't be getting any liberals... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Well, someone has to do it... nobody else can. But the chances of that happening ore remote at best. I don't know, if some anti-abortion nut figures out that if he takes out the court now then bush can appoint a whole set then... you know... I wonder if there are rules about not having them all in the same place at once for security reasons? I kind of think that the WORST person to nominate potential judges is the president. Do it at random. Let judges do it. Pick them based on matching the makeup of society (sex, race, religion). ANy of these would seem less partizan to me. But hey... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffSaberist Posted February 2, 2006 Author Share Posted February 2, 2006 Remember that the Senate must vote on the justice nominees. There is a check on the President. Just because the majority of the Senate is Republican doesn't necessarily mean that they all agree with Bush every single time. I know I don't agree with the President all the time, the foremost issue being how he responds to terrorism... As for all of them dying, I'm not sure if there are security laws or not. Sounds like a Google project to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gray Master Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 If the president, any president, was to have need to appoint nine judges to the Supreme Court, then we would again find ourselves in the same situation we did after the the Consitution was first put into effect. At that time, what was required was an understanding of the constitution, NOT the followinging of one ideology or another. If the Congress should want to start inforcing a different set of standards, well, then George Washington said it best in his farewell adress in 1796... "If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." Congress MAKES the laws and it would take a consitution amendment to validate what has happened in Congress over the last few years in regards to the appointment of judges and various levels, including, but not limited to, the Supreme Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Though as there are no constitutional rules on how the court is appointed, how many members it must have, or anything else it is entirely allowable (and has happened several times in the past) for presidents or congress to propose changes to the system, to attempt to manipulate the system, and for the number of judges and their method of appointment to change. I think at one point there were 6, then 9, now 7. Is that right? And most of those changes were politically motivated changes by congress or the president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gray Master Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 The Supreme Court, at this time, has 9 justices (including Chief Justice Roberts. The Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, put into place 5 associate Justices and one Chief Justice. The number has went as high as 10. Since 1869, there have been 9 members of the supreme court. Franklin D. Roosevelt tried, unsuccessfully, to raise the number to 15. Congress disaproved. It is Congress that has the final say on how many. As it stands, the court cannot have a decision split evenly. This would happen whether we had 7, 9, or 99. If we had, say 1001, we would probably still have decisions that come down to one vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 The Supreme Court scaled back protections for government workers who blow the whistle on official misconduct Tuesday, a 5-4 decision in which new Justice Samuel Alito cast the deciding vote [...] The ruling was perhaps the clearest sign yet of the Supreme Court's shift with the departure of moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the arrival of Alito. [...] Stephen Kohn, chairman of the National Whistleblower Center, said: "The ruling is a victory for every crooked politician in the United States." http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/30/2257259&from=rss well, that turned out great then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 That's fantastic news. I'd always thought it was unprofessional to let anyone know if your supervisor was skimming funds into a personal account while sexually harassing the employees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.