Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-22-2010, 11:22 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,076 posts, read 20,491,882 times
Reputation: 7807

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Because a political party is involved with writing LAWS that the Supreme Court will eventually have to rule on. Personally I'd rather they make sure they write laws that will pass constitutional muster and not need challenged, overtruled, and rewritten, but I guess you'd rather go through the 10+ years it takes with unconstitutional laws on the books while they go through being challenged..

Well...since that's the procedure outlined in the Constitution...yes, I would prefer to take the 10 year route.

Assuming that's what they were doing there, which is just one among many assumptions, having Supreme Court Justices helping a political party write laws which they may be called to rule upon would most certainly be grounds for impeachment, don't you think?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-22-2010, 11:30 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,866 posts, read 46,504,056 times
Reputation: 18520
It shouldn't take years for the supreme court to get the cases involving that high of a ruling.

The longer it drags out, the more an unconstitutional laws embeds itself like a parasite and starts sucking from the host. Then you can never get rid of it all. Then the little parts left, start breeding and multiplying.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2010, 11:35 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,992,474 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
Well...since that's the procedure outlined in the Constitution...yes, I would prefer to take the 10 year route.
So you'd be all fine and dandy with waiting 10 years if a kook managed to get laws passed that said those taking part in gay sexual acts should be killed? I highly doubt it..
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
Assuming that's what they were doing there, which is just one among many assumptions, having Supreme Court Justices helping a political party write laws which they may be called to rule upon would most certainly be grounds for impeachment, don't you think?
Nope.. You have all sorts of special interest groups writing laws and then getting Congress to pass them. Look at the stimulus bill and the healthcare bill for 2 examples. Wait, maybe I should rethink my reply.. Yes, helping to write laws are grounds for impeachment. When are you going to call for Obamas impeachment?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2010, 11:36 AM
 
9,879 posts, read 8,002,733 times
Reputation: 2521
Quote:
Originally Posted by UB50 View Post

I understand that Supreme Court Judges can be impeached and I believe that it's called for when they are not impartial justices.
And who would be judging the impartiality The only judge ever impeached was Samuel Chase - impeached and accused of partisanship affecting court rulings. He was acquitted and served until his death.

I don't know if there is a ban from them attending political planning meetings.....but if there isn't there should be.

In this day and age, with unlimited access to information and opinion, I doubt there is anyone on the SC with impartiality - it is after all, something that is really humanely impossible.

I for one, don't believe in lifetime appointments in the SC,
and it should be changed. They have too much power, and
little or no accountability.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2010, 11:37 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,076 posts, read 20,491,882 times
Reputation: 7807
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
It shouldn't take years for the supreme court to get the cases involving that high of a ruling.

The longer it drags out, the more an unconstitutional laws embeds itself like a parasite and starts sucking from the host. Then you can never get rid of it all. Then the little parts left, start breeding and multiplying.
You can't change that without changing the Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2010, 11:46 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,076 posts, read 20,491,882 times
Reputation: 7807
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
So you'd be all fine and dandy with waiting 10 years if a kook managed to get laws passed that said those taking part in gay sexual acts should be killed? I highly doubt it..
What would be the Constitutional alternative? Or, are you among those who belive the Constitution really is just something of a bother when it allows things you don't like to happen?

Quote:
Nope.. You have all sorts of special interest groups writing laws and then getting Congress to pass them. Look at the stimulus bill and the healthcare bill for 2 examples. Wait, maybe I should rethink my reply.. Yes, helping to write laws are grounds for impeachment. When are you going to call for Obamas impeachment?
Congress is the representatives of The People. So are "special interest" groups. If they put their heads together to craft a bill for Congress to consider, the Constitutional principles have not been violated.

If the Supreme Court gets involved in crafting legislation, on which they may have to rule, they have violated the principle of the separation of powers and should be impeached.

I find it difficult to understand how anyone can defend the presence of Supreme Court Justices at a partisan, political planning session. I'm guessing that had the DNC invited Justices to help them plan the next election, the outrage from the right would be palpable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2010, 11:47 AM
 
Location: My little patch of Earth
6,193 posts, read 5,359,165 times
Reputation: 3058
SC judges are required to have no political views or interests? They are required to recuse themselves should such a case come in front of them I think.

I'm more concerned about a worldwide union president, communists and terrorists visiting the WH on a regular basis.

You can't recuse yourself from these associations if you continue them.

But that's just me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2010, 11:54 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,866 posts, read 46,504,056 times
Reputation: 18520
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post

If the Supreme Court gets involved in crafting legislation, on which they may have to rule, they have violated the principle of the separation of powers and should be impeached.

Would that be equal between all 3 branches, or is the SC a stand alone enemy?

There would be a big issue of separation of powers between Executive and Legislative in the current administration, using the same protocol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2010, 12:03 PM
 
Location: San Jose
1,862 posts, read 2,381,490 times
Reputation: 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
I can only hope the OP is as critical as of the company kept by SCOTUS justices Sotomayor and Kagen as he is of the constructionist justices. Somehow I suspect once again it is selective outrage at best and an all out Soros lemming attack at the worst.
Did they participate in the activities you disapprove of when they were justices? I don't think so.... my understanding is that Scalia and Thomas did it while sitting on the Supreme Court bench.

Having said that... I don't know if what Scalia and Thomas did is impeachable or not.... but it's at the least bad form... and :-0 poor judgement
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2010, 12:20 PM
 
Location: Earth
24,620 posts, read 28,236,422 times
Reputation: 11416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
And obama has a reason to dress down the SCOTUS justices on national tv in his SOTU address? What precedent is there for a president to do that?

Do liberal judges ever attend DNC meetings?
When did you stop beating your wife?
If you have nothing to show that they have, why make the assertion?
To minimize what your "side" has done?

As has been stated, if anyone from the SCOTUS attends a planning session, it is inappropriate.
Or is it OKIYAR?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:15 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top