jkcerda on 23/9/2018 at 17:50
She's going down in flames
heywood on 23/9/2018 at 17:59
Quote Posted by Starker
Aren't the strategical retirements and the picking of younger judges quite partisan already in a system where judges serve for life? And doesn't it simply mean that partisan politics get to influence the courts for longer, therefore having a larger influence? At least term limits would make it less prone to chance and political gambles. I saw somewhere that 18 years was proposed as a term limit for the SCOTUS (basically, every president gets to pick two) -- is that not quite a lot of continuity already?
There is no way to avoid partisan politics in the appointment process. But I think having them occur less frequently allows the court to operate more independently, and it minimizes the number of times the court is disrupted by partisan politics (e.g. going without a ninth justice for over a year).
Long serving justices help keep the balance of the court stable over the long term and (probably) closer to the center. For example, there was a period of time from 1968 to 1992 where Republicans had the Presidency for 20 out of 24 years and the one Democrat President in that period (Carter) never got to nominate a justice. However, the ideological center of the court only drifted mildly right of center during that period, not by as much as you might expect. The reason for that is the long terms of Brennan (34 years), Marshall (24 years), and Stewart (23 years).
EDIT: I think that allowing the justices to determine when it's time to retire is an important part of the separation of powers concept, and an independent judiciary and a free press are the two biggest obstacles to fascism. In any given election cycle, you could see a big wave of left or right populism throw the Presidency and Congress to a party bent on packing the courts with political hacks, and the justices (if they don't die) have the power to decide whether that happens.
nickie on 23/9/2018 at 18:14
I did read/hear somewhere that when lifetime appointments were thought to be a good idea, people didn't live that long.
What you say makes sense, heywood, but it's the 'lifetime' and apparent lack of approval (greatest disapproval for 30 years as per some polls) of Kavanaugh that's freaking people out - at least from where I'm sitting. 'People' keep saying that 'it' should all come out so the 'American people' can judge for themselves. As I understand it, it won't matter a damn what 'the people' think.
jkcerda on 23/9/2018 at 18:26
Yeah. Kavs name was never mentioned until he was nominated for SCOTUS , unca does not appear to care if the allegations are true , it seems the ends justify the means to too many lefties
Nicker on 23/9/2018 at 19:46
Quote Posted by jkcerda
unca does not appear to care if the allegations are true , it seems the ends justify the means to too many lefties
Ummm. YOU don't seem to care that the accusations might be true. You have made up your mind and your ends seem to justify your means.
Thanks Mr. Kettle.
jkcerda on 23/9/2018 at 19:57
My mind is made from her bs story holes and actual accounts from those who SHE claimed were there . You Guys don't care how flawed her story is as long as it accomplishes Kav not getting nominated So yeah there is a big difference between you guys and myself .
Again how many of you voted or supported Clinton no matter the accusations and payoff?
Starker on 23/9/2018 at 20:29
Quote Posted by heywood
There is no way to avoid partisan politics in the appointment process. But I think having them occur less frequently allows the court to operate more independently, and it minimizes the number of times the court is disrupted by partisan politics (e.g. going without a ninth justice for over a year).
Long serving justices help keep the balance of the court stable over the long term and (probably) closer to the center. For example, there was a period of time from 1968 to 1992 where Republicans had the Presidency for 20 out of 24 years and the one Democrat President in that period (Carter) never got to nominate a justice. However, the ideological center of the court only drifted mildly right of center during that period, not by as much as you might expect. The reason for that is the long terms of Brennan (34 years), Marshall (24 years), and Stewart (23 years).
EDIT: I think that allowing the justices to determine when it's time to retire is an important part of the separation of powers concept, and an independent judiciary and a free press are the two biggest obstacles to fascism. In any given election cycle, you could see a big wave of left or right populism throw the Presidency and Congress to a party bent on packing the courts with political hacks, and the justices (if they don't die) have the power to decide whether that happens.
Appointments may always be partisan, but wouldn't regular vacancies help ensure that not every appointment is a fight to the death and increasingly polarising, thereby also lessening the chances for disruptions?
As for balance, if Kennedy hadn't turned out to be a swing vote on some issues and Blackmun hadn't swung to a more liberal position, the court would have been quite a bit more conservative leaning. If balance essentially depends on luck, is it really proper balance?
Also, is the court really independent when retirements are strategised, though? Especially when candidates are picked from a list compiled by an ideological think tank. And if the term limits were fixed, they wouldn't face pressure to retire either.
Finally, speaking of separation of powers, there's also the question of the court's legitimacy -- term limits would help reduce the chances of the court becoming sort of an unelected legislature, with nobody to able to check them. As I understand, US justices can only be impeached for "bad behaviour".
Nicker on 23/9/2018 at 21:32
Quote Posted by jkcerda
You Guys don't care how flawed her story is as long as it accomplishes Kav not getting nominated So yeah there is a big difference between you guys and myself .
Whereas you don't care how valid her story might be as long as Kavanaugh gets confirmed. I see the difference now!
Thanks, Mr. Kettle.
jkcerda on 23/9/2018 at 23:31
If I didn't care about her story, I would have not researched her story and found all those plot holes and all the people who have denied her bullshit claims, some here don't care how fake her claims are it's funny some here pretend To have the moral high ground while supporting the Clintons who obviously did worse shit, they are no different than those Christians who voted for Trump is been divorced three times but sure as hell pretend to be
Nicker on 24/9/2018 at 00:45
You keep asserting that, jk, but it really doesn't mean shit. It's just your opinion.
