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.
Ha. And what Democrat is such a guarantee? Hillary? Hardly. She's going to get torn a part for her past and for her failures. Who else is there but her? Anyone else will have an even tougher time, with the exception that you'll have the media and hollywoods support
Dems win the WH automatically. The electoral votes guarantee it. They could run a cat and it'd win provided it wasn't white and male and kept the welfare coming.
Why not just pick a moderate candidate with a history that can attract support from a majority in the senate?
Isn't that the point of a checks and balances system? The legislature gets to approve or reject the judicial nominees made by the executive branch?
Ginsburg should leave this to the White House and Capitol Hill. Step down when she she no longer wants to serve. If the White House wants to appoint a radical that will never get approved, that's their business.
That's what they did with Roberts. Although a Bush appointee and heavily politicized he's a moderate that got through the process.
Given her negative comments about the constitution being outdated, that's a pretty difficult position to support. It's hard to claim someone is a wonderful and thoughtful jurist who openly declares that the document that she is sworn to uphold is irrelevant.
You clearly have not read her judicial opinions (and are blowing an out-of-context snippet out of proportion). Read, for example:
And many more. She is certainly a thoughtful and accomplished jurist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaten_Drinker
Ginsberg should be IMPEACHED and removed from office immediately. She has just proven she is not impartial.
Impartiality does not mean you cannot have opinions. It means you should not have bias for/against or disrespect for the laws that you judge. You should not have a bias for/against the parties before you. It also means you should not have a financial interest in any case before you. Her interview demonstrates no judicial bias. This is similar to the people who argue that Justice Thomas should be impeached because of his wife's political activities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
That's what they did with Roberts. Although a Bush appointee and heavily politicized he's a moderate that got through the process.
I would not classify Roberts as a moderate. He is, however, qualified to serve as a member of the Supreme Court, certainly. That is how the Senate should carriy out its confirmation duties--determine whether the potential Justice is qualified to serve, and carry out a vote. The same is true for lower-level judges--many of whom the Republicans filibustered to avoid even an up-or-down vote.
Not really. Liberals want someone who will vote in a similar manor as she did. There are clearly too many conservatives on the Supreme Court... And we don't need another...
Given her negative comments about the constitution being outdated, that's a pretty difficult position to support. It's hard to claim someone is a wonderful and thoughtful jurist who openly declares that the document that she is sworn to uphold is irrelevant.
What do you think of Justice Scalia's comments about the Soviet Union having a much better Constitution than the US?
PLEASE what Republican has any chance of being elected in 2016?
Oh, please mark your thread and come back and let us know how your thinking played out after November 2nd. You have no idea how hard the ass kicking is going to be.
It doesn't matter who the justice is, they should still have term limits. As it stands now, a justice could have Alzheimers and forget they're even living in the United States, and we'd have no means to remove them. There should at least be an age limit, but I really want...well I guess it's a time limit since they don't serve "terms" the same way Congress and the President do. Let's say 12 years. That lets them serve under at least two Presidents so a President can't pick a parrot. I wouldn't mind someone serving twice actually as long as there was a mandated time between terms, maybe another 12 years, or maybe 8 or I don't know. But we need something.
No, it certainly does matter. Given the role of the Supreme Court (and lower federal courts) in the system of checks and balances provided in the Constitution, an independent judiciary is essential, for it acts as a curb against the encroachment of government on individual rights and liberty. Under the constitutional provision for separation of powers, federal judges are not supposed to be subject to political influence in fulfilling the court's role. A federal judge, who serves with life tenure on good behavior, can wield great power; which is why it is important to appoint "qualified" persons and not just political ideologues to the federal bench. That is why federal judges are appointed by the President subject to confirmation by the Senate and not elected.
It doesn't matter who the justice is, they should still have term limits. As it stands now, a justice could have Alzheimers and forget they're even living in the United States, and we'd have no means to remove them. There should at least be an age limit, but I really want...well I guess it's a time limit since they don't serve "terms" the same way Congress and the President do. Let's say 12 years. That lets them serve under at least two Presidents so a President can't pick a parrot. I wouldn't mind someone serving twice actually as long as there was a mandated time between terms, maybe another 12 years, or maybe 8 or I don't know. But we need something.
Justice Ginsburg certainly has her faculties--as do Kennedy and Scalia, who are only 3 years her junior. Occasionally a Justice holds on too long. I have little doubt that a Justice whose mind is slipping gets some friendly prodding towards retirement by his or her colleagues. And, even if that fails, we have eight other Justices to pick up the slack. The lifetime appointment protects against political influence after appointment.
If there were a set term for the judicial branch, a Judge (or Justice) might feel pressured to make decisions friendly to the political branches in order to secure subsequent appointments. It would sully the non-political branch considerably more than the current system.
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.
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.
