Jindal goes all in.....Disband the Supreme Court

[treee]

(06-30-2015, 01:22 PM)PhilHos Wrote: And I don't think that's what they're doing. I believe the Supreme Court has been corrupted by politics and are no longer concerned with the maintaining the constitutionality of the laws of the land as evidenced by the fact that the justices tend to rule based on their political affiliation.

If you think the Supreme Court has been corrupted by politics now I'd love to see your reaction after these hypothetical term limits.

[JustWinBaby]

Abolishing the SCOTUS is over-the-top, but his whole statements in context make a lot more sense...Mainly, that if they're going to ignore plain language because they believe Congress intended something different then there's not much point in having them (to rubberstamp legislation(.  I think he was saying this in regard to the Obamacare ruling. 

[*michaelsean*]

(06-30-2015, 01:48 PM)treee Wrote: If you think the Supreme Court has been corrupted by politics now I'd love to see your reaction after these hypothetical term limits.

Why do you think it would be more political with a term limit?  I'm not agreeing with a term limit, but I don't know why that would make someone more political.

[JustWinBaby]

(06-30-2015, 02:12 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Why do you think it would be more political with a term limit?  I'm not agreeing with a term limit, but I don't know why that would make someone more political.

Because the entire point behind not being elected is politics and agendas aren't supposed to drive their rulings.  But that's probably a falacious belief, since both parties want to nominate Justices who are idealogues...it's only when you have opposing parties in control of the WH and Senate that you get maybe a more centrist nominee.

Clearly the SCOTUS isn't very impartial when at least 6 of the 9 votes are entirely predictable based on the politics of the case.  As it stands, those 6 votes generally offset, but that means 3 judges are mostly deciding those cases.  And maybe 3 is all you really need with the other 6 making compelling arguments.  But the SCOTUS could be dramatically altered by the next President appointing up to 3 Justices....which is pretty scary.

[fredtoast]

(06-30-2015, 11:26 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Great idea, I think there should be an amendment to the US Constitution regarding gun ownership.

I wonder what it should say?

Maybe something about mentally-ill convicted criminals being allowed to own .50 caliber machine guns.

No limits, right? Any regulation that is not specifically written in the Constitution is an outrage.

[fredtoast]

His response is one of disappointment with the Supreme Court and their continued move away from what our country was built on. The morals of our country hasn't changed they are just being run over. Hollywood and people with agendas are trying to make it look like the average person agrees with whats going on and they don't. The laws have been shot down in state voting and this is a way to force their agendas on people that hold christian values. The voters have spoken but its not the answer they wanted. The statement above about the S Court following public opinion polls is not accurate because it isn't what the public wants. As shown by state voting. Its what special interest groups want. The last statement above is accurate and most people in our country agree with it. Eventually they will get what they want and unfortunately God may turn his back on this great country (if he hasn't already) that has been so blessed from its begining that was built upon his word.Thats when the people who have caused it to happen will be asking what happened to this great country and the answer will be we turned our back God and his word. And then it will be to late. GOD BLESS AMERICA.


This country was founded on the principle that slavery was okay.  If that is what your god wanted then I hope he turns his back on us.  We don't need that type around here.

[fredtoast]

The Supreme Court has become controlled by politics. Term limits might be the answer, but they would have to be at least 10 years and staggered to prevent one President from being able to pack the entire court with his party.

And if the SC gets too far out of line we can always amend the Constitution to overrule them.

[*bfine32*]

(06-30-2015, 03:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Maybe something about mentally-ill convicted criminals being allowed to own .50 caliber machine guns.

No limits, right?  Any regulation that is not specifically written in the Constitution is an outrage.

Maybe the individual State could implement those controls.

They have abolished the 10th Amendment all together yet have they?

[fredtoast]

(06-30-2015, 04:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Maybe the individual State could implement those controls.

They have abolished the 10th Amendment all together yet have they?

If the Constitution addresses it then the 10th amendment does not apply.  10th amendment only refers to things not specifically addressed by the Constitution, and the 2nd amendment clearly addresses gun control.

[*bfine32*]

(06-30-2015, 04:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If the Constitution addresses it then the 10th amendment does not apply.  10th amendment only refers to things not specifically addressed by the Constitution, and the 2nd amendment clearly addresses gun control.

The 2nd Amendendment protects the right to bear arms. That's why I suggested the states should implement the controls to that right; not take the right away.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-30-2015, 02:46 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Because the entire point behind not being elected is politics and agendas aren't supposed to drive their rulings.  But that's probably a falacious belief, since both parties want to nominate Justices who are idealogues...it's only when you have opposing parties in control of the WH and Senate that you get maybe a more centrist nominee.

Clearly the SCOTUS isn't very impartial when at least 6 of the 9 votes are entirely predictable based on the politics of the case.  As it stands, those 6 votes generally offset, but that means 3 judges are mostly deciding those cases.  And maybe 3 is all you really need with the other 6 making compelling arguments.  But the SCOTUS could be dramatically altered by the next President appointing up to 3 Justices....which is pretty scary.

Not elected. You are appointed, and your appointment lasts for a specified amount of time. Say 15 or 20 years.

[BmorePat87]

(07-01-2015, 08:20 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Not elected.  You are appointed, and your appointment lasts for a specified amount of time.  Say 15 or 20 years.

Same concept. There would be pressure to appease those who would reappoint and reaffirm them.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-01-2015, 08:34 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Same concept. There would be pressure to appease those who would reappoint and reaffirm them.

No one term.  You serve whatever the term is and leave.

[GMDino]

(07-01-2015, 10:06 AM)michaelsean Wrote: No one term.  You serve whatever the term is and leave.

They can't even agree to appoint lower court judges at this point.  Can you imagine the arguing and delaying over appointing SC members that will sit for even for 20 years?  The appointing of justices has been a campaign talking point since as long as I can remember.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-01-2015, 11:34 AM)GMDino Wrote: They can't even agree to appoint lower court judges at this point.  Can you imagine the arguing and delaying over appointing SC members that will sit for even for 20 years?  The appointing of justices has been a campaign talking point since as long as I can remember.

That wouldn't be any different than it is now.  In the end I'm guessing it would take an amendment to change it which will never happen.  I'm not even saying I'm for it, I was just trying to explain what the original post was intending.

[*PhilHos*]

(06-30-2015, 01:30 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Do you feel this way because they ruled in favor of SSM?

No, I've felt this way long before then. I've noticed that almost every MAJOR ruling of the last 10-15 years (if not longer) you see the conservative justices siding with the right's viewpoint and the liberal justices siding with the left's. Yes, there are exceptions, but this seems to be the norm.

This is why when a justice is set or thought to retire during a presidential election cycle, this makes it even more imperative for the Dems and Repubs to win the White House.

[*PhilHos*]

(06-30-2015, 01:48 PM)treee Wrote: If you think the Supreme Court has been corrupted by politics now I'd love to see your reaction after these hypothetical term limits.

Oh, I know my proposal nor term limits are going to fix the Supreme Court. I don't even know if it is fixable. But, since it's already a political entity unto itself, might as well make them accountable to the general public, even if we hold them accountable like we do Congress. :snark:

[*PhilHos*]

(06-30-2015, 04:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And if the SC gets too far out of line we can always amend the Constitution to overrule them.

I could be wrong, but I thought there was already a way to overrule the Supreme Court?

[fredtoast]

There should be no popular election of Justices, but I am fine with term limits.

There have been cases of Justices that have become close to incompetent to serve but refused to step down just because the current president was from the wrong party.

Term limits may still not fix that problem, but I don't see why any appointment should be for life.

[fredtoast]

(07-01-2015, 12:06 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I could be wrong, but I thought there was already a way to overrule the Supreme Court?

The only way is to either re-draft the law to fit the requirements of the SC or amend the Constitution.