Fears from the other side - Printable Version +- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net) +-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4) +--- Forum: Den of the Philociraptor (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=43) +--- Thread: Fears from the other side (/showthread.php?tid=3096) |
Fears from the other side - Weltall - 9th August 2005 Quote:Court Justice Worried About Criticism By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer Most of this is really peripheral but one part stands out, that being the second paragraph. Quote:Breyer urged lawyers to help educate people about court responsibility to be an independent decision-maker. This really is the element of what's wrong with the Supreme Court. The Court is NOT an independent decision-maker. It was not intended to be. When the Founders wrote the constitution, they set up the political triumvirate and the system of checks and balances to prevent exactly this. If you have one branch that can act independent of the other two, you open the door for total control and abuse of power, and that's what we're beginning to see from the Court at times. I think it's laughable that any member of the Court would complain about interference, when a position on the court is by great leaps and bounds the most secure political position in the entire Federal Government. Justices are appointed for life. They never once have to worry about the opinions of the people whose decisions they directly affect. This is why I think it's time to think about bringing some aspects of the Court into modern times, to retool it. It's time for direct elections of Justices. It's time to remind said Justices that they are part of the system, not above it. Fears from the other side - Dark Jaguar - 9th August 2005 You know, I was starting to see their way of thinking in this, that they wouldn't want "petty politics" involved, but in the end our government is a necessary evil (as a founding father once put it). Sure cheap political ploys can be used, but in the end you are right, the judges ARE meant to fear reprisals, within limits in the constitution, from the other branches. They HAVE to have an idea that they are representing the people. You know what I think a major change should be? Well, the "life appointment" clause. These people are positively ANCIENT, thanks to modern medicine, and I don't think the founding fathers really expected anyone to live past their first "bleeding". The term should be long, perhaps 20 years, but "life" just is too long at this point. And, it'll only get longer. What happens when we can preserve the justices in a head jar for all eternity? They won't go away until someone assasinates them! Fears from the other side - A Black Falcon - 11th August 2005 Quote:You know what I think a major change should be? Well, the "life appointment" clause. These people are positively ANCIENT, thanks to modern medicine, and I don't think the founding fathers really expected anyone to live past their first "bleeding". The term should be long, perhaps 20 years, but "life" just is too long at this point. And, it'll only get longer. What happens when we can preserve the justices in a head jar for all eternity? They won't go away until someone assasinates them! Yeah, I thought of this... 25 years or something would be good. People didn't live too long on average in 1792... Quote:You know, I was starting to see their way of thinking in this, that they wouldn't want "petty politics" involved, but in the end our government is a necessary evil (as a founding father once put it). Sure cheap political ploys can be used, but in the end you are right, the judges ARE meant to fear reprisals, within limits in the constitution, from the other branches. They HAVE to have an idea that they are representing the people. Judges are supposed to be apolitical, so anything they do to try to maintain that in such an extremely partizan time as ours is probably a good thing... Fears from the other side - Great Rumbler - 11th August 2005 But shoudn't they also try to balance the needs of the people as well? I'm pretty sure that allowing the goverment to take your property and give it to Wal-Mart isn't doing that. Fears from the other side - Dark Jaguar - 11th August 2005 I'm not sure they are meant to be apolitical... Having to consider the opinions of the other two parts of government with potential consequences seems to be a part of that whole check and/or balance thing. I hate to use an extreme example and I know where this analogy fails, but when a dictator finally comes to power, political considerations no longer exist except in terms of preventing rebellion or outside invasion. Fears from the other side - A Black Falcon - 11th August 2005 Quote:But shoudn't they also try to balance the needs of the people as well? I'm pretty sure that allowing the goverment to take your property and give it to Wal-Mart isn't doing that. Only to a degree. Remember, our government was created to have layers to insulate overall government policy from popular movements... the founders were suspicious of the people, even if they did end up with a very liberal constitution for the time, and it shows. All of the layers are there to keep the people from having too much direct impact on what the government does... over time some of that has eroded away (and rightly I'd say), but not all, and not all of it should go. This is probably a case of that... them making the decision from a purely legal stance (though I have no idea how they managed to convince themselves that this goes with the spirit of the constitution...), not one that is based on popular opinion. (usually not going with popular opinion is a good thing, but here if you look at it as a case of that it's not, intrestingly enough... (you know, I'd consider the standard example of 'not following sudden public pressure' would be the 'no sudden popular movement can take over government in the space of two years (and that's good)' thing) Quote:I'm not sure they are meant to be apolitical... Having to consider the opinions of the other two parts of government with potential consequences seems to be a part of that whole check and/or balance thing. I hate to use an extreme example and I know where this analogy fails, but when a dictator finally comes to power, political considerations no longer exist except in terms of preventing rebellion or outside invasion. They're supposed to be above partizan political concerns, for sure... |