1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Your opinion of supreme court justices

Discussion in 'Law' started by Curious George, May 16, 2020.

  1. Curious George

    Curious George Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,261
    Ratings:
    +2,691
    I have heard, over years, many people expressing distaste for this or that supreme court justice (or even more common supposed factions within the Supreme Court). I also hear people emphasize the importance of political parties controlling supreme court justice picks.

    As i was driving today, i wondered about your opinions of past and present supreme court justices. Are there any you dislike? Find repugnant? Believe threaten the American way of life?

    Then i wondered, if those of you who place so much emphasis on supreme court justices have read any opinions with which you disagree. I wondered if you could articulate why and on what grounds you disagreed with these opinions.

    Or whether the dislike or emphasis on the these justices was not really related to a ends justifies the means type mentality, where you blindly support whatever justice's argument advocates an outcome which you feel is right.

    In short are your opinions of supreme court justices highly colored by your personal convictions on particular issues?
     
  2. Nowhere Man

    Nowhere Man Bompu Zen Man with a little bit of Bushido.

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    28,531
    Ratings:
    +11,251
    Religion:
    Bompu Zen Buddhism
    My only concern is why in the world does supreme court has lifetime appointments?

    We vote for judges on the local level, why can't Americans vote for it's judges on the Supreme Court instead of having them appointed?

    If there's anything that would affect the status quo and business as usual that would be it. Nobody would be stuck with perpetual Supreme Court justices that would represent either side one way or another. Instead, it would represent the American people rather than the politicians appointing them in positions rather reminiscent of a monarchy.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Curious George

    Curious George Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,261
    Ratings:
    +2,691
    The idea is that they would not then be influenced with political winds of a time. Providing this job security protects, in theory, the position from being more politicized.

    Ideally, the executive branch appoints a justice and the legislative branch confirms this appointment based on merit and character.

    While you suggest that this is an issue, i would ask why? Is this simply because you do not like the idea of a person having a lifetime appointment? Or is it because you think some justices should be removed? Or do you think that lifetime appointments allow for abuse?
     
  4. Augustus

    Augustus the Unreasonable

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    11,086
    Ratings:
    +9,667
    Religion:
    none
    It turns the SC into more of a lottery given some presidents may nominate multiple judges and others none.

    Fixed terms would solve the issue of independence, and if 1/2 were replaced at the end of each electoral cycle then the SC would better represent the recent voting history.

    Also prevents 'tactical' retirements when your side is in power, and the nepotism that can occur when someone offers to retire if they can choose their replacement.
     
  5. Curious George

    Curious George Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,261
    Ratings:
    +2,691
    Except the interpretation of the law is not meant to reflect voting history. The law itself is meant to do this.

    Why are you worried about "tactical" retirements? Do you take issue with any SC justices, if so who and why?

    I am unaware of any SC justice offering to retire if they can choose their replacement. I don't think this is an issue.

    I would think that cycling through SC justices with the ushering in of a new political party in the executive office would serve to make the appointments much more political than they already are and encourage justices to behave much more political than they already do.

    You would in effect be making the supreme court an extension of the presidents cabinet. This is a really, really bad idea.
     
  6. Salvador

    Salvador RF's Swedenborgian

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    5,301
    Ratings:
    +1,678
    Religion:
    Swedenborgianism
    I'd like Judge Jeanine Pirro to replace Ruth Gader Ginsburg.

    [​IMG]
     
  7. Curious George

    Curious George Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,261
    Ratings:
    +2,691
    And why is that?
     
  8. Augustus

    Augustus the Unreasonable

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    11,086
    Ratings:
    +9,667
    Religion:
    none
    Yet judges if you studied SC voting history without knowing the names of the judges, you could probably guess which party appointed them.

    The last one did so his protege could take his seat, did he not?

    Replace 2 per term and they'd each serve 16 years regardless of who was elected next, this in no way an extension of the cabinet.
     
  9. Salvador

    Salvador RF's Swedenborgian

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    5,301
    Ratings:
    +1,678
    Religion:
    Swedenborgianism
    Because Judge Jeanine Piro is a constitutionalist judge who upholds the Second Amendment as opposed to Ruth Bader Ginsburg who has tried to take away American's second amendment right
     
  10. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Hihg Intellajence Kwoshunt.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    166,699
    Ratings:
    +51,602
    Religion:
    Bokononist Atheism
    I'm going to side track briefly.
    Worry not...it's worth it.
    I once had a commercial tenant who was majoring in political science at UofM.
    Striking up a conversation about it, I asked him his opinion of the various
    justices. He said he didn't have one, but he did know that there are 12 of them.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  11. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    15,648
    Ratings:
    +17,104
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    I like Ginsburg and Sotomayor. I pretty much despise Thomas. I disagree with Roberts a lot, but I think he is intelligent and a man (mostly) or principle. I can't say the same about Alito. Kavenaugh should never have been nominated and Gorsuch was a stolen seat. We will see if either shows a bit of independence. Kagan and Breyer I don't have as good of a feel for.

    I look back on the Burger court with fondness. Once Rehnquist went from the 'lone dissenter' to the Chief, matters have pretty much been going downhill. I miss Brennan.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. Curious George

    Curious George Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,261
    Ratings:
    +2,691
    That sounds like a lot of speculation. Although i don't think there is an issue with SC justices making recommendations.

    I don't think i would worry as much about only two being replaced each 4 year term, if the legislative branch provided a rigorous review and minimum standards were upheld.
     
  13. Curious George

    Curious George Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,261
    Ratings:
    +2,691
    What does the term "constitutionalist" mean to you, with what opinions of Ginsburg do you disagree and why?
     
  14. Curious George

    Curious George Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,261
    Ratings:
    +2,691
    Why to each of those? With what particular opinions do you disagree or agree?
     
    #14 Curious George, May 16, 2020
    Last edited: May 16, 2020
  15. Salvador

    Salvador RF's Swedenborgian

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    5,301
    Ratings:
    +1,678
    Religion:
    Swedenborgianism
    A Constitutionalist rejects judicial interpretation of the law, as well as of the U.S. Constitution, laws must be applied exactly as written, in making judgements and rulings.

    I disagree with Justice Ginsburg's opinion regarding her judicial interpretation of the Second Amendment.
     
  16. Curious George

    Curious George Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,261
    Ratings:
    +2,691
    So you mean what is commonly referred to as a strict constructionist or texualist?

    And to what Ginsburg opinion are you referring? Are you talking about her joining Steven's or Breyer's dissent in Heller?

    Have you read the dissent? With what did you disagree? And why is that enough to want to replace a justice?
     
  17. Salvador

    Salvador RF's Swedenborgian

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    5,301
    Ratings:
    +1,678
    Religion:
    Swedenborgianism
    I abhor Ginsburg's dissent on Heller vs. D.C., I consider gun ownership for the purpose of self defense to be an inalienable right according to the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment.

    Ginsburg's old age will soon require she be replaced.
     
  18. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    15,648
    Ratings:
    +17,104
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    It is unavoidable to interpret the law. The question is whether you interpret to suit the actual case or not.

    If interpretation isn't required, judges themselves would not be required. they could be replaced by machines.

    Could you give an example of a case where Ginsburg interprets the 2nd Amendment in a way that isn't justified by the wording of that Amendment?
     
  19. Salvador

    Salvador RF's Swedenborgian

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    5,301
    Ratings:
    +1,678
    Religion:
    Swedenborgianism
    Justice Ginsburg has been hostile to the Second Amendment. She believes it does not apply to the modern world because it is outdated. In my humble novice legal opinion, She failed to realize it is a court's task to adjudicate and not to legislate from the bench,

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms for defense of life and liberty.

    In U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894) and U.S. v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court recognized that the amendment protects an individual right. It has never taken a different view. However, in Salina v. Blaksley (1905), the Kansas Supreme Court invented the idea that the amendment instead protected a “right” of a person to keep and bear arms only while serving in a state militia, and in U.S. v. Tot (1942), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit advanced the idea that the amendment protects the “right” of a state to have a militia."

    Reference: NRA-ILA | Second Amendment & the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

    In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court heard its first case specifically centered on whether the amendment protects an individual right to arms. Gun control supporters advanced essentially the "Salina" argument, but the Court, consistent with its previous rulings in Second Amendment-related cases, ruled that the amendment protects an individual right to keep arms and to bear arms "in case of confrontation," without regard to a person’s relationship to a mili
     
    #19 Salvador, May 17, 2020
    Last edited: May 17, 2020
  20. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    15,648
    Ratings:
    +17,104
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    And, truthfully, I agree with Ginsburg on this. The amendment is pretty clear about the freedom being to have a well regulated militia. And, let's face it, very few of the gun owners are in a well regulated militia.
     
Loading...