Reform the Supreme Court?

Should we make reforms to the Supreme court and if so what? I think the easiest and most sensible would be to make a super majority needed to over rule whatever case is brought before them. Thats what it takes for a constitutional amendment and it seems to even get a judge nominated. A 5 to 4 decision means one judge in reality has decided the fate of our nation. 6 to 3 should be the minimum needed to declare something unconstituitional or have the court act on a matter. In a trial it takes 100% of the jury to decide . As far as term limits I think a maximum age or physical mimimum requirement may be a better choice.

While I think it's a great idea, neither side in American politics trusts the other enough to come together and enact real reform. Both sides would be looking for 1) how do I take advantage and 2) how do I make sure the other side doesn't. In that light, reform efforts are doomed.

The fact is, we're stuck with exactly the oligarchy we want. Just as we have to accept that the Iranians are happy with their government, by virtue of the consent of the governed, our consent implies our acceptance and desire for governance by a panel of lifelong unelected oligarchs.

I think I also suggested the reforms Gawain now proposes in another thread.

But i agree with Don, a sensible solution is hard to find in politics in these times.

I think we do need reform. And your logic is sound enough, I think Gawain. However, I think that would lead to even more rulings that I disagree with, but I'm not sure what else to do.
Perhaps if the Congress elected the Supreme Court, but they are a bunch of corrupt bastards too. But one thing is for sure, I really don't like how the President can just put in judges.

You didn't seem to mind when it was Clinton putting 'hippy-chick' Ginsburg in there. ~D

Perhaps, but it's the idea itself. I mean hypothetically, a President could poison all of the Justices (their old, no one would be suprised if they died), and put in his own bunch to pass any laws that he liked. Just like FDR tried...
But you have a point, it's always easier to disagree with something when it goes against you as opposed to helps your views. ~;)

I think Don has the best point.. nothing will change.

The Democrats wont accept any changes proposed by President Bush and the Republicans wont change since weve got the chance to put in conservatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

I think Don has the best point.. nothing will change.

The Democrats wont accept any changes proposed by President Bush and the Republicans wont change since weve got the chance to put in conservatives.

---

And vice-versa when the Democrats get back in.

I like your sig though. Hehe.

I was thinking of getting it in bumper sticker form, but Im sure someone wouldnt get the comic value and take it literally. :argue:

This is the most reasoned discussion I've heard in awhile. I agree with Gawain that the majority required for a decision should be made larger. On the other hand what do you do with a 5-4? I guess it would become a "non-decision" that fails to alter the lower court ruling, but also does not endorse their position? Or maybe it becomes a single island of a ruling but can not be cited as a precedent? I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure how it would be handled.

One thing a 6-3 requirement will also do is to make the court even slower to respond on many issues.

I also agree with Don that reform efforts are unlikely to go well.

So if you don't like a courts rulings, you just reform it ??

I think it's just fine the way it is.

Quote:

---

On the other hand what do you do with a 5-4? I guess it would become a "non-decision"

---

Exactly. It would be treated the same as those cases the court deems not to hear and stand as they are. Same as a hung jury.

If you require a Super Majority, you may as well throw out any sort of Constitutuional Review: a grave error, in my opinion.

Quote:

---

If you require a Super Majority, you may as well throw out any sort of Constitutuional Review: a grave error, in my opinion.

---

Well it would seem ypur opinion is by far the minority one here. Once more judicial review itself was taken upon the court by the court. Its not in the constitution.

Quote:

---

Well it would seem ypur opinion is by far the minority one here. Once more judicial review itself was taken upon the court by the court. Its not in the constitution.

---

I am well aware that the courts took the responsibility upon themselves without getting the power handed to them. By taking the power of Constitutuional Review upon themselves, they have, more or less, made themselves the ultimate authority and replaced the Constitution from where it belonged. Knowing this does not mean requiring a super majority is a good idea. Cases in which there is no ruling regarding constitutionality result only in lawlessness; i.e. the Constitution may as well not be there. E.g., If the 5-4 of their recent case would've been ignored, the lesser appelates would have gotten the ruling the Supreme Court merely reaffirmed. As it is currently the Highest Court judging constitutionality, there should always be a ruling, when the court hears a case. For a body to legitimately enjoy the ability of Constitutional Review, there must be some sort of amendment clarifying the power.

Edit: And, I couldn't care less if I was in the minority.

Quote:

---

Knowing this does not mean requiring a super majority is a good idea.

---

Yes it does as they are already doing something unconstitutional. Putting more of a limit on it can only be better.

Quote:

---

. Cases in which there is no ruling regarding constitutionality result only in lawlessness; i.e. the Constitution may as well not be there

---

If the judges cant agree then the matter of wether its constitutional or not must not be clear. How does that negate the constitution. Besides that all laws are checked by the legislature that passes them for constitutionality already. The constitution remains important other than when in the hands of these judges . You said it yourself.

Quote:

---

they have, more or less, made themselves the ultimate authority and replaced the Constitution from where it belonged

---

If this is so the constitution already may as well not be there. They certainly have trampled on it lately.

Quote:

---

For a body to legitimately enjoy the ability of Constitutional Review, there must be some sort of amendment clarifying the power.

---

So you would legitamize the illegitimate.

Let's not kid ourselves. We need the courts reviewing the constitutionality of laws (doesn't matter which end of the political spectrum you are on, you will be the minority somewhere.) If you don't have that, then you get all sorts of abuses. Even when you do have it you get abuses...just not as many and not as pronounced.


Molson,

FDR was working hard to enlarge the Supreme Court to something like 15 so that he could stack the bench and stop them from striking down every piece of legislation that went through. The Court got the message, and started to show more restraint. The proposal was dropped.

Quote:

---

Let's not kid ourselves. We need the courts reviewing the constitutionality of laws

---

They want to review them fine.Burt they should have no power to enforce or tell the legislature what to do about it. Advice is all they should give.

Quote:

---

FDR was working hard to enlarge the Supreme Court to something like 15 so that he could stack the bench and stop them from striking down every piece of legislation that went through. The Court got the message, and started to show more restraint. The proposal was dropped.

---

FDR was one of the worst presidents ever. I had a hard time not going off on your other post about him. Yes he tried to stack the bench because the court was finding his proposals unconstitutional. He is the one who helped cause this mess. The constitution be damned. This guy seized the property and imprisoned hundreds of thousands of US citizens, yet today all we here is how terrible Bush is because of the Patriot act and the poor terrorists at Gitmo. He started the bloated buracracy we have today and has created a monster out of the federal government. Only LBJ can claim to have done near as much damage to the Constitutiion. Their social programs are responsible for most of the problems we have today.

Gawain,

This country and world are far better off because of FDR and what he did. Believe whatever you want. What I hear in FDR criticism is the same sort of thing I hear about Lincoln and others. There is the bizarre desire to regress by many conservatives. They want to go back to the "barefoot and pregnant", Jim Crowe South (and some perhaps slavery), with an anti-Catholic protestant run govt., no birth control, no safety net, no women's suffrage, limited education, zero pollution control, no FDA, and the big industry trusts in charge of the economy. Or perhaps they want to live under a christian equivalent of Shariah law. Whatever, the case, I don't want to go backward.

As an example, if Dubya had been in charge instead of FDR, the nation would have had a civil war. The socialists might have won, but the Nazis probably would have ended up in the driver seat once they polished off Europe. No, I'm not kidding in the least.

Quote:

---

This country and world are far better off because of FDR and what he did.

---

Says you.

Quote:

---

There is the bizarre desire to regress by many conservatives

---

Lately thats more the preserve of liberals though they called it progressing.

Quote:

---

They want to go back to the "barefoot and pregnant", Jim Crowe South (and some perhaps slavery), with an anti-Catholic protestant run govt., no birth control, no safety net, no women's suffrage, limited education, zero pollution control, no FDA, and the big industry trusts in charge of the economy. Or perhaps they want to live under a christian equivalent of Shariah law. Whatever, the case, I don't want to go backward.

---

Now Red for the most part you seem a very reasonable fellow and one of the few seemingly moderate people Ive met here though you do seem to swing to the left ~;) But dont you think your exagerating things a bit here? You would have been lost in early america with such beliefs as you have now and certainly this is not what the founding fathers invisioned for this nation.

Quote:

---

As an example, if Dubya had been in charge instead of FDR, the nation would have had a civil war. The socialists might have won, but the Nazis probably would have ended up in the driver seat once they polished off Europe. No, I'm not kidding in the least.

---

I say just like those who say anyone would have dona as good a job as Bush on 911 that any president could have gotten us out of the depression and probabaly faster than FDR and any president would have won WW2 if put in his position. In fact it was the war that got us out of the deperession and gave him the presidency for four terms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Says you.

But dont you think your exagerating things a bit here?

---

No, not at all. This country was in severe crisis when FDR took charge. When everything looks bleak, people are starving, and there is no light at the end of the tunnel...that is when revolutions happen my friend. If you look at what was happening in other parts of the world in the decades leading up to this you can appreciate why this is quite plausible.

Quote:

---

I say just like those who say anyone would have dona as good a job as Bush on 911 that any president could have gotten us out of the depression and probabaly faster than FDR and any president would have won WW2 if put in his position. In fact it was the war that got us out of the deperession and gave him the presidency for four terms.

---

Anyone could have done as much as Bush did--it is not that impressive of a record. McCain would have done much better on 911 and thereafter. We would have gotten Osama in the first year, and quite possibly Omar too. Economically, he would not have busted the budget. If he had decided to go into Iraq he would not have done it under false pretences, nor would he have fouled up the occupation with an understrength force. He wouldn't have left Afghanistan is a state of suspended animation. More importantly, he wouldn't have divided this nation like the "Great Polarizer" has.

I don't think "any president" could have won WW2. FDR did what he could to put a reluctant nation in some preparedness for war against its own will. He managed to keep the UK in the show while we had stagefright.

Quote:

---

But dont you think your exagerating things a bit here?


No, not at all. This country was in severe crisis when FDR took charge. When everything looks bleak, people are starving, and there is no light at the end of the tunnel...that is when revolutions happen my friend. If you look at what was happening in other parts of the world in the decades leading up to this you can appreciate why this is quite plausible.

---

I was speaking of this

Quote:

---

There is the bizarre desire to regress by many conservatives. They want to go back to the "barefoot and pregnant", Jim Crowe South (and some perhaps slavery), with an anti-Catholic protestant run govt., no birth control, no safety net, no women's suffrage, limited education, zero pollution control, no FDA, and the big industry trusts in charge of the economy. Or perhaps they want to live under a christian equivalent of Shariah law. Whatever, the case, I don't want to go backward.

---

Quote:

---

Anyone could have done as much as Bush did--it is not that impressive of a record. McCain would have done much better on 911 and thereafter

---

You have nothing to back this up other than your own opinion.

Quote:

---

I don't think "any president" could have won WW2.

---

Maybe a better president could have kept us out of it.

On the regressive stance of the current conservative movement: The most common conservative refrain is to undo many of the changes of the past 60 or 70 years. In that context, my remarks were right on target. I won't withdraw them. I actually prefer to call them regressives. You can't call them progressive, because it is completely counter to their desire to return to a former time that they idealize. There is also the fundamental connotation: regression and progression carry some time references. I have chosen the label carefully...more so than "compassionate conservative" was chosen for example. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

You have nothing to back this up other than your own opinion.

---

Oh, really?
1. McCain warned before the Iraq war started and many times since that the plans were not realistic for the occupation. He has been proven right.
2. What are the chances that McCain would have let Osama get away once found? Remember Tora-bora? That was a high order bungle.
3. What are the chances that McCain would not have followed through on Afghanistan? The efforts to rebuild never did take off as needed. Dubya failed to sieze the post-war initiative while he could. Instead, he was moving on, leaving unfinished business.
4. McCain has not been in favor of Dubya's budget wrecking. There are clear facts and numbers to show what damage Dubya has done. He can't say he wasn't warned--and the effect of unforseen crises like 9/11 was also a common state concern in opposing his plan! Instead he claims the problem doesn't exist, or he couldn't have known, and that this giant shortfall is not his fault...yeah, right.
5. McCain has opposed the religious extremism that is dividing the country. It cost him the primaries and effectively ended his candidacy. Dubya embraced it and uses it to divide the nation rather than unite it.
6. McCain's lack of religious fervor would have served us well in maintaining the focus on terrorism, and not on religion. There is no doubt that comments about "Axis of Evil" and calling our war against terror a "crusade" (Dubya's own words, and addressing Muslim's no less--literally it translates as "followers of the cross" if memory serves) have hurt our ability to fight this world cancer. Dubya squandered our moral capital.
7. It is hard to imagine that McCain or anyone else could do such a poor job on the diplomatic scene as Dubya has done.
8. I also doubt McCain would have had the absent, run-away, run-away approach that Dubya had in the early hours of 9/11. (Yes, I noticed that at the time, it was one of the poorest showings of emergency leadership I've witnessed.)

Being as McCain has a true military background, survived some badly broken bones, and a long stretch in a POW camp while Dubya was an AWOL draft dodger; I reckon the chances of Dubya outperforming McCain in the prosecution of a war are incredibly small. (Better to try for that winning $10,000 dollar scratch off ticket.)

Taking it further. Even Al Gore could have done no worse than Dubya (and perhaps better, for a few of the reasons already given.) 9/11 was a modern Pearl Harbor. It was a certainty we were going in, the only serious question that arose immediately was where, then whether we should use nukes to get Osama if needed because of the remote aspect and terrain.

Quote:

---

Maybe a better president could have kept us out of it.

---

Doubtful unless we decided to let Europe and Asia fall and tried to acheive a separate peace. As in most European affairs we are too far removed geographically to prevent the wars from happening. History has repeatedly shown that if you can't pose an immediate direct military threat to an ultra-aggressor, then you cannot hope to contain them with diplomacy. Besides there was Japan to contend with, and they struck first.

Quote:

---

Oh, really?
1. McCain warned before the Iraq war started and many times since that the plans were not realistic for the occupation. He has been proven right.
2. What are the chances that McCain would have let Osama get away once found? Remember Tora-bora? That was a high order bungle.
3. What are the chances that McCain would not have followed through on Afghanistan? The efforts to rebuild never did take off as needed. Dubya failed to sieze the post-war initiative while he could. Instead, he was moving on, leaving unfinished business.
4. McCain has not been in favor of Dubya's budget wrecking. There are clear facts and numbers to show what damage Dubya has done. He can't say he wasn't warned--and the effect of unforseen crises like 9/11 was also a common state concern in opposing his plan! Instead he claims the problem doesn't exist, or he couldn't have known, and that this giant shortfall is not his fault...yeah, right.
5. McCain has opposed the religious extremism that is dividing the country. It cost him the primaries and effectively ended his candidacy. Dubya embraced it and uses it to divide the nation rather than unite it.
6. McCain's lack of religious fervor would have served us well in maintaining the focus on terrorism, and not on religion. There is no doubt that comments about "Axis of Evil" and calling our war against terror a "crusade" (Dubya's own words, and addressing Muslim's no less--literally it translates as "followers of the cross" if memory serves) have hurt our ability to fight this world cancer. Dubya squandered our moral capital.
7. It is hard to imagine that McCain or anyone else could do such a poor job on the diplomatic scene as Dubya has done.
8. I also doubt McCain would have had the absent, run-away, run-away approach that Dubya had in the early hours of 9/11. (Yes, I noticed that at the time, it was one of the poorest showings of emergency leadership I've witnessed.)

---

Quote:

---

The most common conservative refrain is to undo many of the changes of the past 60 or 70 years. In that context, my remarks were right on target. I won't withdraw them.

---

Again says you. Yes we do want to remove all the unconstitutional laws passed by 50 years of Democratic rule in the congress. If going by the constitution is reggressive then conservatives are indeed guilty as charged.

Quote:

---

Being as McCain has a true military background, survived some badly broken bones, and a long stretch in a POW camp while Dubya was an AWOL draft dodger; I reckon the chances of Dubya outperforming McCain in the prosecution of a war are incredibly small. (Better to try for that winning $10,000 dollar scratch off ticket.)

---

So now being a POW makes you a better leader of a country in war? By this reasoning shouldnt you have voted for Dole over that draft dodger Clinton. Also how much experience did Mc Cain have leading troops or making any kind of strategic desicons. How much military experience did your idol FDR have? Then of course theres Kerry the hero LOL.

Quote:

---

Doubtful unless we decided to let Europe and Asia fall and tried to acheive a separate peace.

---

If Broitain knew there was no way we would join the war they would have made peace with germany. It then would have come down to a war between Russia and Germany. Then we should have gone over and kicked the butt of the winner. We may have avoided the cold war and the whole USSR debacle.

So now your Nostradomus? Again this is nothing more than conjecture on your part.