Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
Should Supreme Court Justices.... >

Should Supreme Court Justices....

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Should Supreme Court Justices....

Old 07-18-2015, 04:03 AM
  #11  
Little Doe Peep
 
sachiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 14,945
Wink

Originally Posted by RobertSubnet View Post
Wrong. Article 3 of the Constitution created a judicial branch. However it was not until the Marbury v. Madison decision that the SCOTUS had the power of judicial review.
That power of judicial review seems to make the Supreme Court the most powerful branch of government, rather than three co-equal entities.

If you're not happy with a law passed by Congress or an action of the president, you can appeal to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court rules that the action is unconstitutional, end of discussion.

I'm wondering if the guys who wrote the Constitution really intended that.
sachiko is offline  
Old 07-18-2015, 04:55 AM
  #12  
Boone & Crockett
 
Oldtimr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: south eastern PA
Posts: 13,126
Default

Not seems too Sachi, it does make the SC the most powerful entity in government. It almost has absolute power. Imagine what a corrupt SC could do! Imagine if all the Justices were leftists.
Oldtimr is offline  
Old 07-18-2015, 05:11 AM
  #13  
Little Doe Peep
 
sachiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 14,945
Red face

Originally Posted by Oldtimr View Post
Not seems too Sachi, it does make the SC the most powerful entity in government. It almost has absolute power. Imagine what a corrupt SC could do! Imagine if all the Justices were leftists.
Ah, but they don't ALL have to be leftists. You just need five and we already have four.

You and I both know that, should one of the conservative justices pass on to the afterlife, it could be "Good Bye" second amendment.

Would our Republican Senate have the guts to reject an Obama appointment?

Obama appointed two justices, but it didn't change the makeup of the court. How many justices would a President Clinton get to appoint?
sachiko is offline  
Old 07-18-2015, 05:17 AM
  #14  
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: idaho
Posts: 2,773
Default

Originally Posted by Oldtimr View Post
Not seems too Sachi, it does make the SC the most powerful entity in government. It almost has absolute power. Imagine what a corrupt SC could do! Imagine if all the Justices were leftists.

to expand on that thought even if they were all rightys it would not be a good thing. better then lefties but still corrupt.


absolute power corrupts absolutley. that is the entire reason for the checks and balances system the forefathers set up. it is the job of the people to be involved, to insure no one part of gov abuses it's power. something "we the people " have become very lax at doing.
kidoggy is offline  
Old 07-18-2015, 07:41 AM
  #15  
Boone & Crockett
 
Oldtimr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: south eastern PA
Posts: 13,126
Default

Yeah I know Sachi, they only need a majority.
Oldtimr is offline  
Old 07-18-2015, 11:01 AM
  #16  
Nontypical Buck
 
BigBuck22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,291
Default

Who decides what "higher standard" entails? Another judge? lol
BigBuck22 is offline  
Old 07-18-2015, 06:54 PM
  #17  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,673
Default

not held higher no - but what they rule on shoudln't be law of the land IMO

5 of 9 people can be bought just like anyone else can
Ranger77 is offline  
Old 07-19-2015, 02:43 AM
  #18  
Dominant Buck
 
Champlain Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Vermont
Posts: 21,333
Default

Originally Posted by Ranger77 View Post
not held higher no - but what they rule on shoudln't be law of the land IMO

5 of 9 people can be bought just like anyone else can
The fact that they are appointed by the sitting administration allows bias. This next election cycle is important to keep the future SCOTUS makeup somewhere near neutral. If we don't get a conservative elected the future balance will most assuredly be biased liberal.
Champlain Islander is offline  
Old 07-19-2015, 09:38 AM
  #19  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 7,869
Default

Originally Posted by Champlain Islander View Post
The fact that they are appointed by the sitting administration allows bias. This next election cycle is important to keep the future SCOTUS makeup somewhere near neutral. If we don't get a conservative elected the future balance will most assuredly be biased liberal.

again this approach no matter what claims of the opposite are made is trusting/expecting government to be the answer.

The answer is for the people not to give the government an opportunity to regulate and that is done by how we vote everyday.

The idea that you can't enforce morality on others is exactly why the government can, they just call it law. Not only is it up to us to do right it is also up to us to do what we can to get others to do right.
nodog is offline  
Old 07-20-2015, 04:01 AM
  #20  
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
 
AF Hunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Iowa (Heartland USA)
Posts: 3,249
Default

In my opinion, and the reason I asked, Supreme Court Justices should be held to a higher standard as they are appointed for life, not a set term, and their job is to rule specifically on the constitutionality of a law a lower court's ruling; nothing else. If they do start ruling along political lines or voice opinions that do not coincide with their duty as a justice, it is also my opinion that they should be held liable for those actions and removed from the court.

If they can't do that, they should not accept the nomination for appointment.
AF Hunter is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.