Best
165 Comments
Post
  • #146
    !
    @cpeter133 Maybe your statement should read, "the general public is being kept ignorant of too much."
    I fear that too much is being done in deference to those who want to completely change the things that are so right about our nation...to make our nation too much like the countries others flee when they come to our country. Before long there may be a U.N. representative advising our supreme court.
  • #158
    !
    @seedtick Most people can't find their own country on a map. They don't know their representatives, and keep making claims about the constitution that appear nowhere in the document or in the body of constitutional law.

    Although the UN/SCOTUS paradigm is unlikely, why do we even belong to it if we have no intention of participating?
  • #161
    !
    @cpeter133 There is a difference between participation and leadership. We do not belong to the U.N. so we can be part of things that are against our national interest or things that our citizens oppose. We do not ever need to be subjected to foreign courts for things we do within our own nation.
  • R Load more replies

  • #66
    !
    Plus a retirement age would keep them from hanging on until their party is in power which may be long after they should have stepped down.
  • #15
    !
    The Supreme Court has become political because both republicans and democrats demand that potential justices disclose their views on various issues of interest to the party rather than an evaluation of standing in the legal community and their history. The problem is that often justices are so firm in their own views that they almost never cross the line and vote with the opposition.
  • #137
    !
    Just got this topic. Agree with you whole heartedly. Also it is political because human nature is to be loyal to the PARTY of the president who nominated you hence even if they are too old they stay until that party is in power. That way a similar appointee is assured.
  • #20
    !
    I think many, like politicians, go in thinking they can and will do the right thing. Notice how old they are, and with that being said, don't you know that at a certain age, you lose that filterfof things that shouldn't be said? Many of these justices are passed a working age. On the other hand, that part was for life, but they should retire before they get past the filter.
  • #50
    !
    They should retire when they individually decide to retire. I suspect we will see a raft of retirements in 2017. I can see at least three!
  • #2
    !
    You have Justices who have admitted to disliking the constitution, ones who claim it doesn't mean what is written and ones who hate certain amendments and want to change them. We don't have any constitutionalist judges, we have conservative ( a bit more aligned to constitutionalist) and liberal justices. Appointing a judge is no longer an issue of who knows the constitution and more who will push my agenda. No one in the right mind could think Sotomay or Kagan or even Scalia is a good justice.
  • #18
    !
    and those need a cell ,yet like all bigshots they get away with things that none should.

    or like sotomayor and the fire fighter issue a cell was needed for her bigoted decision
  • #59
    !
    Guess I am not in my right mind. I have found reading their individual opinions enlightening even when I disagreed with their position. I remember early in Justice Thomas's tenure when it was said by the left that he was a Scalia copycat.
    It turned out that Thomas was totally independent of Scalia and Scalia followed Thomas, just the opposite of the position the left took. Thomas would be my nominee for a constitutionalist.
  • #27
    !
    NO position should be for life. When there's no fear of losing one's job, some begin to think that can do what they want. Seems to me that there should be a term just like any other position. At the end of that term, you're done and someone else takes your place. The procedure should remain the same with the Senate providing confirmation.
  • #93
    !
    Perhaps every two years the longest tenured justice should resign. With nine justices that would mean that a maximum of 18 years would be their term. This would give each president at least two appointees. Of course, others may retire earlier or die in office and would need to be replaced.
  • #6
    !
    One thing Is I don't think media and stuff should be in on live proceedings making a circus out of it. I DO think they should tape it for anyone to view later.
    Term limits would be fine but I think maybe 20 years. I would think that they would already be required to disclose gifts and so forth. if they actually aren't then that shouldbe changed immediately.
  • #14
    !
    Understand that any judge is going to bring their own personal biases to the bench. There is no way around it. Some have strict interpretations of the Constitution, while others have broader. With that said, Lifetime appointments serve two crucial objectives. One, they insulate the Justices from outside political pressures and influences in reaching their decisions. Outside political pressures would just add more bias to any decision. Second, lifetime appointments provide stability to the courts, which prevent wild swings in the courts ideology. This allows for society to change through evolution and not revolution.

    In every facet of the federal government, our founding fathers put in checks and balances to prevent the centralization of power. They understood that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That concept is universal and is as true today as it was 200 yrs ago, and will still be true 200 yrs from now.

    What I find particularly disturbing is the drumbeat,(mostly from the left) to systematically remove these checks; whether its lifetime SCOTUS appointments, filibusters or the electoral college.
  • #63
    !
    What I find disturbing, as should every American, is the Supreme Court weakening Voters Rights and allowing the super-rich, via the Citizens United and McCutcheon rulings, to sway elections. Also, the Republicans' gerrymandering districts and doing everything they can to keep Americans from voting, by claiming non-existent voter fraud, curtailing the time to vote and adding restrictions. What are they afraid of?
  • #77
    !
    @Briand Firstly, I SUPPORT the Citizens United and McCutcheon decisoins. Secondly, contrary to what many people mistakenly believe, their is NO U.S. constitutional "right to vote". This was reaffirmed most recently in Bush v. Gore (2000). Don't like that FACT ? Then amend the U.S. Constitution to specifically say that people have a right to vote. Democratic Representative Pocan from Wisconsin introduced such legislation quite awhile ago, but it has very little support in Congress. The bill to amend the U.S. Constitution to provide an affirmative right to vote is HJ Res. 44 (2013).
  • #127
    !
    @FaFoxy
    Not only is there a right to vote in the Constitution, but it’s the single right that appears most often in the Constitution’s text – five times in all. In fact, four separate Amendments – the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th – even use the same powerful language to protect it:“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged ....” Of course, like every other constitutional right, the right to vote is subject to reasonable restrictions. Nevertheless, it’s just as much a constitutional right as any other embodied in our Constitution.
  • #128
    !
    @Briand You have no idea what you're talking about. There is NO U.S. Constitutional "right to vote" in the U.S. Constitution. This was most recently affirmed in Bush v. Gore (2000). And even liberal Democrats admit this. Which is why liberal Democratic Representative Pocan (D-Wis) introduced a proposed U.S. Constitutional Amendment in 2013 to PROVIDE FOR a "right to vote" in the U.S. constitution. Go study a little bit of U.S. Constitutional Law.
  • R Load more replies

  • #8
    !
    More stupidity from the american people. 1. Citizens United was a constitutional decision. You don't like it? Start a movement to change the constitution. 2. Just like with their congressman, people don't REALLY want changes in the supreme court. They want the OTHER justices they don't like to be replaced. Do leftist nut jobs want ginsburg kicked off the bench, or Breyer? I didn't think so. Likewise, I don't want great men like Scalia and Thomas kicked off. But I'd love to see that prune ginsburg, who thinks we need to look at international law when ruling on the constitution, kicked off.
    The problem is that liberals on the court DON'T want to rule on the constitution, they want to rule on their emotions, they'd rather look at international law instead of the constitution. Why? Because they don't like the constitution. They don't like what it says, and they don't like what it doesn't say. So, they just dream it up....a la, roe v. wade, and Heller v. D.C.
  • #91
    !
    Not only term limits but age limits for SCOTUS and all Federal Courts. If you were a genius whiz kid when appointed after a time you are not really up on what is happening and needed. The Constitution does not change, except by Constitutional amendment, but various groups want to interpret it differently and this must be avoided in order to not legislate by court order.
  • #90
    !
    Because the article's pic only showed a limited # of response categorization columns........it extended further to the right with more columns
  • #76
    !
    Yes, a single six year term and you are finished. No one in government, including the judiciary shoul have lifetime appointments. One six and done, period.
  • #4
    !
    It wouldn't be such a problem if
    a) the People and the States hadn't been constantly forfeiting more and more power to Washington for the past century - that makes control of Washington a target for the corrupt and power-hungry because there is much more power to abuse
    b) the Supreme Court hadn't been allowed to usurp the power to determine what the Constitution says - it makes no sense that any party to a contract should be given authority to determine the terms of that contract. This essentially gives the Court dictatorial power since there's not really anything stopping them from "interpreting" the Constitution as saying whatever they want, including "we have dictatorial power".
  • #51
    !
    The Supreme Court did not usurp any power to determine what the Constitution meant. That was the primary intended function of the Court from very early in its history.
  • #58
    !
    @fraps I have read that, but I find the Constitution lacking in specific language supporting that claim (although I am aware that there are a number of examples of specific support for judicial review in other documents from that period). If that was the intent, I find it odd that our founders would have been so foolish as to grant such a straightforward avenue to tyranny to such a small group of men.
  • #62
    !
    @TheSaltMiner I think you are probably one of an extremely small group that can see a path to tyranny by the Supreme Court. If anything it is somewhat a safeguard against it. The real safeguard is Congress.
  • R Load more replies

  • #103
    !
    From looking at the results of surveys like this, one might come to the conclusion that Americans have a clue. Then comes the reality that 2/3s of 'em voted for the Marxist currently occupying the White House...not once, but TWICE!!![Does a Sam Kinison "Oh! OH! OHHhh!!!"]
  • #92
    !
    Moot point, Constitution et al. At least you admit the study is from a left leaning firm, making suspicious at a minimum and most likely twisted to show what they want. Someone please answer the question of where in the Constitution does it give the govt the right to limit what someone can spend on a candidate? If this is something so universally supported then why not have a Constitutional Amendment? That is the correct way to enact a change of this type. Thought the moronic "precedent" argument does give you someone to laugh at as they identify themselves as a moron.

    I happy that the court is finally looking for Constitutional basis to cases before them, not citing opinion or other countries (unless they are leftist activists that don't belong and should be impeached). I can only hope that the court can turn back to the Constitution and scale back the overreach of the Federal Government. If a judge cannot support a position through the Constitution, they should be impeached, once again the appropriate step under our current governing documents. Even in Roberts vote for obamacare the fees were defined as taxes, to pass the Constitutional muster in his view, one I disagree with but that doesn't matter.

    When the population is in excess of 100 million people, a powerful central govt will begin to implode of it's own weight.
  • #83
    !
    I don't think we need term limits for the "Supremes" but we certainly need stronger ethics, conflict of interest and non-partisanship rules.
  • R Load more comments...
Post