Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9038 total)
241 online now:
kjsimons, ramoss, vimesey (3 members, 238 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,693 Year: 3,339/14,102 Month: 280/724 Week: 38/91 Day: 3/3 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   2020 Election early voting and eventually results
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 731
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 91 of 200 (883022)
10-31-2020 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by PaulK
10-31-2020 2:47 AM


Why so touchy? I'm not saying anything you disagree with, either by "innuendo" or outright!

I haven't said anything at all against packing the court.

But . . .

1. Are you sure all the new justices that will benefit from the scheme will be chosen for their merit rather than their political views?

2. How sure are you that these justices, however meritorious, will remain loyal poodles? Remember, in United States vs. Nixon the justices appointed by the President ruled against him.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by PaulK, posted 10-31-2020 2:47 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by AZPaul3, posted 10-31-2020 7:56 PM Sarah Bellum has responded
 Message 96 by PaulK, posted 11-01-2020 1:10 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5838
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 92 of 200 (883023)
10-31-2020 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Sarah Bellum
10-31-2020 6:55 PM


How sure are you that these justices, however meritorious, will remain loyal poodles?

Not these people. They're thinking posterity, legacy, being the bestest loved respected influential, etc, justice that ever graced this land of the free, etc. They have made it to the top of humanity. If there is a political element in the consideration, as long as there is no clear violation of either the letter or spirit of the law (and we can argue the spirit thing) then, with history, you may/can figure how that will influence an opinion.

I wouldn't count on Barrett automajikly having Trumps back.


Factio Republicana delenda est.
I am antifa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Sarah Bellum, posted 10-31-2020 6:55 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Sarah Bellum, posted 11-02-2020 3:32 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2306
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 6.6


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

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5838
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 94 of 200 (883025)
10-31-2020 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by anglagard
10-31-2020 9:25 PM


Re: Judicial Retention Elections
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."

quote:
shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour
At the time it was written the phrase had only the one meaning. A lifetime appointment. That was the original intent and will be preserved by the courts.

but for reasons I've already stated, it is not viable over the long term.

Remind me, please. What viability is lost over the long term? Other than being a new dynamic in national politics I can not see any obvious glaring dangers to the republic by varying the number of SCOTUS seats even by every administration. If both houses of congress agree then there appears no defensible position to legally object.

What you are criticizing is being done already at the state level.

Yes, it is. I have it here in Arizona. It sucks. There are constant scandals. And, as you might expect, they usually involve favors and donations. Can't seem to help it given the need to raise outside cash to get to keep your job.

For an openly political organ this behavior is, maybe not countenanced, but somewhat expected. Everyone can relate their favorite parts of the Citizens United discussion.

I submit none of that will help maintain the independence of the judiciary. I submit it would do quite the opposite and would shatter the courts with bias.

Perhaps you would prefer the Supreme Court pick the next President regardless of the wishes of the majority.

I'm gonna have to think on this. It does have an appeal.

Edited by AZPaul3, : i splin goodly

Edited by AZPaul3, : dang i spel proficiently good


Factio Republicana delenda est.
I am antifa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by anglagard, posted 10-31-2020 9:25 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5838
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 95 of 200 (883026)
11-01-2020 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by anglagard
10-31-2020 9:25 PM


Re: Judicial Retention Elections
not any 'oversight' the Senate who approved their appointment in the first place chooses not to perform.

What oversight was missed? We're still talking SCOTUS seats, right? Ok, extend that to SCOTUS personnel. The justices themselves.

There is a procedure that one side or the other always screams foul on regardless of whose turn it is. For some centuries now (yeah, I know, all of 2. We're still new at this.) that procedure has produced justices.

Now that the justice is seated you want some kind of more oversite? How about if the congress doesn't like this guy (or girl, yes, of course, to keep some balance within another bothersome conversation) they get to impeach him, try him and kick him (her, it, them, pick a pronoun) out. (God, that's bothersome syntax)

That's a pretty big oversight congress uses on this independent co-equal branch of government. The congress practices this oversight quite diligently at all levels of the federal courts. Even tried a Supreme once.

I don’t see anything missing.

Oh, certainly, you're not suggesting some kind of ideological oversight? A popular ideological oversight? Short sighted, fleeting and down right dangerous? Popularity contests on Supreme Court Justices? Again, remember, in ANY election money will flow both pro and con. The outcome usually reflects the biggest wallet.

Is that really where we want our judicial system?

The founders didn't make everything subject to the whims of the electorate for a reason. They wanted this government to last a while and a future requires the kind of longer term view than the Popular Ideological Oversight Popularity Contest route would produce.

Edited by AZPaul3, : wannid 2


Factio Republicana delenda est.
I am antifa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by anglagard, posted 10-31-2020 9:25 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16861
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 96 of 200 (883027)
11-01-2020 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Sarah Bellum
10-31-2020 6:55 PM


quote:
Why so touchy? I'm not saying anything you disagree with, either by "innuendo" or outright!

In what delusional world would I agree with your vicious attack?

No I do not agree with your innuendo, which is designed solely to dismiss my position without discussion.

quote:
1. Are you sure all the new justices that will benefit from the scheme will be chosen for their merit rather than their political views?

A political element would be necessary to restore balance.

quote:
2. How sure are you that these justices, however meritorious, will remain loyal poodles? Remember, in United States vs. Nixon the justices appointed by the President ruled against him.

They aren’t meant to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Sarah Bellum, posted 10-31-2020 6:55 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Sarah Bellum, posted 11-02-2020 3:50 PM PaulK has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8152
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 97 of 200 (883028)
11-01-2020 6:15 AM


I wonder if this left:right balance and appointments to SCOTUS is as critical as it feels from the outside?

I don't know how your judiciary actually works but it IS independent of the executive. Judges tend to take their independence very seriously and they judge each other on it. I doubt you'd get very far in the judiciary if you were prone to political bias.

Does the fact that the Judges of SCOTUS are appointed by politicians actually mean that they will follow their political bias rather than their sworn legal duty?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by AZPaul3, posted 11-02-2020 8:28 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 98 of 200 (883029)
11-01-2020 6:56 AM


Paragraph 2 of Section 2 of Article 2 of the Constitution
quote:
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The underlined part might well become significant. Congress has great latitude to determine what cases can even be heard by the Supreme Court and can place restrictions on which types of issues can be reviewed by the SCOTUS.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3207
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 99 of 200 (883046)
11-02-2020 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by ringo
10-28-2020 12:23 PM


Re: And now the bad news...
You mean, the difference from a psychoic narrrisstic baby and a responsible adult? Going from a -5 to a +5 (on a scale from 1 to 10?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ringo, posted 10-28-2020 12:23 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 731
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 100 of 200 (883051)
11-02-2020 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by AZPaul3
10-31-2020 7:56 PM


True.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by AZPaul3, posted 10-31-2020 7:56 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 731
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 101 of 200 (883052)
11-02-2020 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by PaulK
11-01-2020 1:10 AM


decaf!
.
.
.
Always a "political element" is there. LBJ appointed Abe Fortas, Reagan appointed Antonin Scalia.

Sometimes, ability is sacrificed to that "political element".

But if these poodles aren't meant to remain loyal...

How can your "balance" be achieved if your chosen justices have independent minds?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by PaulK, posted 11-01-2020 1:10 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by PaulK, posted 11-02-2020 4:03 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16861
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 102 of 200 (883053)
11-02-2020 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Sarah Bellum
11-02-2020 3:50 PM


Because the balance is not about partisanship. It’s not about choosing judges who will decide your way no matter what. The point of the balance is to balance opposing viewpoints.

Complaining that judges don’t follow the party line seems to be a big thing among Republicans, but I don’t see it as important.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Sarah Bellum, posted 11-02-2020 3:50 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Sarah Bellum, posted 11-02-2020 5:51 PM PaulK has responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 731
Joined: 05-04-2019


(1)
Message 103 of 200 (883054)
11-02-2020 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by PaulK
11-02-2020 4:03 PM


So you want to have justices who disagree with the people you disagree with (for "balance"), but you aren't concerned that they follow your party line? You want to have justices that are opposed to the "Republican" (or at least Republican-nominated) justices, but it's "not about partisanship"?

Look, I get it, you want the Supreme Court to decide in certain ways. Let's face it, so do I: I think if Roe vs. Wade is overturned it'll be a serious problem (which can be fixed by legislation, of course, as it was in some states even before 1973) and hope for future justices to be nominated who agree with me.

But I'm not going to say that, just for the sake of equity and fairness, the Court should be "balanced" by putting in justices that disagree with my views on Roe vs. Wade! I find it hard to believe that in the mid-20th century you would have read about the decisions of the Warren Court and said, "There should be some justices nominated that disagree with Brown vs. Board of Education to provide balance"?

Anyway, I really think the legislature should step up and pass laws, rather than hoping for a President to nominate and a Senate to confirm justices that will do the legislating for them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by PaulK, posted 11-02-2020 4:03 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by PaulK, posted 11-03-2020 12:57 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5838
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 104 of 200 (883055)
11-02-2020 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Tangle
11-01-2020 6:15 AM


Does the fact that the Judges of SCOTUS are appointed by politicians actually mean that they will follow their political bias rather than their sworn legal duty?

See my Message 92

I wonder if this left:right balance and appointments to SCOTUS is as critical as it feels from the outside?

Expectations we have of a justice is that he/she/it will exhibit what the profession regards as a high degree of judicial temperament. Deep respect for the law, its processes and procedures including a respect for precedence and starry decisis which are the same thing but when it came up in my brain those electrons, having a natural affinity for those in the computer, the meme just kinda flowed down my arms.

Judicial TemperamentTM is what the American Bar Association, or at least the 15 member committee that does this thing, sees or not when it considers law stuff, past writings opinions and the like that they would rate as "well qualified" specifically for a SCOTUS position. Yeah, they have committees of raters for a number of Fed judgeships. They say they don't look to political leanings unless something is glaringly obvious in his/her/thems legal opinions.

Politics will enter into a judicial opinion where the question being asked presents a spread of legally viable solutions. But, at the SCOTUS level, the "social steering" aspect of the law takes on new meaning. That's how this whole Roe-v-Wade thing started.

One case rocked the courts and the society, Griswold v. Connecticut - Wikipedia, when SCOTUS first "recognized" (others would say "invented") a Constitutional Right to Privacy. It pretty quickly evolved into the whole reproductive rights thing (and an ungodly number of other areas of human and civil rights) which led directly to the reasons the court decided Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia as it did and totally pissed off (again) the religious right. They really hate people.

Problem is some/few legal scholars agree with the "invented" crowd. As a matter of law Griswold was “bad” law. It is an amalgamation of expressed individual constitutional rights wrapped into this greater package called the “right to privacy” never mentioned in the Constitution itself and is being used to get religion-disguised-as-government out of trying to rule society which totally pissed off (again) the religious right. They really hate people.

BS on this bad law crap. For this document, its intention, its duty, it is appropriate and necessary law.

For 50 years now the religious right, through the specter of the Republican Party, has played out a long term multi-generational plan to get that view legally changed by the court itself by selecting justices, with or without the ABA rating, with an expressed view similar to their own.

They may be about to succeed. Yeah, it's critical.

Multiply that times all other areas of law and society where there is a left/right spread of opinion. Employer/Employee rights etc. Yeah, it's critical.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Factio Republicana delenda est.
I am antifa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Tangle, posted 11-01-2020 6:15 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16861
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 105 of 200 (883057)
11-03-2020 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Sarah Bellum
11-02-2020 5:51 PM


quote:
So you want to have justices who disagree with the people you disagree with (for "balance"), but you aren't concerned that they follow your party line? You want to have justices that are opposed to the "Republican" (or at least Republican-nominated) justices, but it's "not about partisanship"?

I want to restore the political balance but without regard to loyalty to a party. That isn’t hard to understand. Of course you probably do and this distortion is just dishonest spin. Or maybe, as a Republican you’ve lost even the idea of principles.

quote:
Look, I get it, you want the Supreme Court to decide in certain ways. Let's face it, so do I: I think if Roe vs. Wade is overturned it'll be a serious problem (which can be fixed by legislation, of course, as it was in some states even before 1973) and hope for future justices to be nominated who agree with me.

Obviously you don’t get it. The central point is that the Republicans have gone too far packing the court with justices that will decide their way, and a balance should be restored. Which way the balanced court rules on particular questions is less important than that there is a balanced court too rule.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Sarah Bellum, posted 11-02-2020 5:51 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-10-2021 9:19 AM PaulK has 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