Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9029 total)
47 online now:
anglagard, Aussie, AZPaul3, dwise1, Michael MD, Phat (AdminPhat) (6 members, 41 visitors)
Newest Member: BodhitSLAVa
Post Volume: Total: 884,356 Year: 2,002/14,102 Month: 370/624 Week: 91/163 Day: 11/40 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   2020 Election early voting and eventually results
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2261
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 88 of 200 (883016)
10-31-2020 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by AZPaul3
10-30-2020 10:10 PM


Judicial Retention Elections
AZPaul3 writes:

The majority of the House must also agree to any change in number of SCOTUS seats. And, frankly, if there is that much political will in favor (the House, the Senate and the president) then so be it. Ride with the politics. That's the way we work.

Just to add, packing the courts is only one solution to a politicized judiciary. For one example, Congress can impose term limits on every federal judge.

The best solution, IMHO, is to subject every federal judge, including the members of the Supreme Court, to a retention vote every federal election, AKA every two years. Any judge who lacks a majority vote in a simple yes/no retention question would be removed immediately and a replacement appointed by Congress, Added to an immediate recall at any point with a 5-10% petition of all eligible voters, and instead of rule by 30 (or 9+) Tyrants, we would have voter oversight of the federal judicial system.

Besides, court-packing could lead to a situation where we have 13 judges when one party is in power, 15 next, 17 next, etc. Next thing you know, the Supreme Court has 99 or 199 or 999 judges with obvious implications concerning actually getting around to a ruling.

This is not a new concept. This state has been doing almost exactly what I propose for all it's judges.

Edited by anglagard, : Redundancy"
Redundancy: two, to's.


The problem with knowing everything is learning nothing.

If you don't know what you're doing, find someone who does, and do what they do.

Republican = death


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by AZPaul3, posted 10-30-2020 10:10 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by AZPaul3, posted 10-31-2020 5:11 PM anglagard has responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2261
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 93 of 200 (883024)
10-31-2020 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by AZPaul3
10-31-2020 5:11 PM


Re: Judicial Retention Elections
AZPaul3 writes:

Art.3, Sec.1 of the Constitution is very specific. Appointed judges serve lifetime appointments. Would need an amendment to get limited service or election for federal judges.

That is your interpretation of Article 3 Sec.1., being "very specific." The actual text states:

quote:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

source

I can't seem to find anything about any "lifetime appointment." What I am suggesting is allowing the electorate to be the judge of behavior in the phrase "shall hold their offices during good behavior." Would it be ruled unconstitutional? Under this court and considering their conflict of interest involved, the answer is likely yes. So, I agree that packing the courts may be the most viable short-term solution, but for reasons I've already stated, it is not viable over the long term.

And do we really want judges selling their opinions for campaign contributions?

Like in Texas, No, and that is not what I am suggesting. Judges would be appointed, not elected, subject to retention elections and recall. Here is the current situation:

quote:
New Mexico is one of 14 states with partisan or nonpartisan judicial elections and retention elections. There are also six states with judicial retention elections, 23 states that have nonpartisan or partisan judicial elections, and seven states without judicial elections.

Source

What you are criticizing is being done already at the state level. My suggestion appears to be the case in six states, and yours likewise in seven. It seems we are both in the minority. As for the remainder of your argument, those are good points but I humbly disagree. I believe retention and recall are the best method to ensure "good behavior," not any 'oversight' the Senate who approved their appointment in the first place chooses not to perform. All federal officials must be held accountable all the time.

The political whims of the majority in any society are too often too fucking stupid for its own good. Trump as exhibit A.

Perhaps you would prefer the Supreme Court pick the next President regardless of the wishes of the majority. I'm sure six members and the majority of the Senate agree.

Edited by anglagard, : Forgot a source


The problem with knowing everything is learning nothing.

If you don't know what you're doing, find someone who does, and do what they do.

Republican = death


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by AZPaul3, posted 10-31-2020 5:11 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by AZPaul3, posted 10-31-2020 10:34 PM anglagard has not yet responded
 Message 95 by AZPaul3, posted 11-01-2020 1:29 AM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021