SCOTUS mixes it up

Thomas is under scrutiny for such. It is up to Congress to take the issue up! But that's a laugh.
 

I really think that there’s merit in the notion of having Supreme Court justices elected rather than appointed, with term limits imposed rather than “for life” appointments. Some justices like presidents grow in the office and develop independent judgement while others do not, remaining thralls to those philosophies that appointed them…
 
Fyrefox said:
I really think that there’s merit in the notion of having Supreme Court justices elected rather than appointed, with term limits imposed rather than “for life” appointments. Some justices like presidents grow in the office and develop independent judgement while others do not, remaining thralls to those philosophies that appointed them…
Click to expand...
But, do we really want SC justices running for office on the basis of a political platform designed to gather votes? An elected court would create a political body, one that scrapped the wisdom of the Constitution. Might as well toss our Constitution in a paper shredder.
 

ElCastor said:
But, do we really want SC justices running for office on the basis of a political platform designed to gather votes? An elected court would create a political body, one that scrapped the wisdom of the Constitution. Might as well toss our Constitution in a paper shredder.
Click to expand...

I can't think of anything more political and divisive than SC justices running for office.

According to our Constitution the elected president appoints a SC justice with the advice and consent of 2/3 of the Senate. That is when elected senators of particular political parties have a chance to say yes or no. To change this process would require an amendment to the Constitution and that is not going to be possible in a country as evenly divided as the US is.

Constitutional Amendment Process https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution
 
I was an interesting day today.

In regards to using race in college admissions, the ruling was 6-3 with the six 'conservative' judges and the three 'liberal' judges voting as united groups.

OTOH, the court also ruled in favor of religious freedom today and that ruling was 9-0.

Groff v. DeJoy concerned whether the U.S. Postal Service was required to make accommodations for an evangelical Christian mail carrier who refused to work on Sundays. When Gerald Groff began working for USPS, Sunday shifts weren’t part of the job. But that changed when USPS signed a deal to deliver Amazon parcels.
Click to expand...
 
ohioboy said:
A simple majority vote will confirm a Justice, not 2/3.
Click to expand...
Correct. The Senate used to have an internal rule - not in the Constitution - that required a super majority of 60 votes to confirm all Federal judges. That has been eliminated over the last decade.
 
ohioboy said:
A simple majority vote will confirm a Justice, not 2/3.
Click to expand...
Yes, thanks for pointing out that mistake.

Brookswood said:
Correct. The Senate used to have an internal rule - not in the Constitution - that required a super majority of 60 votes to confirm all Federal judges. That has been eliminated over the last decade.
Click to expand...
Yes, thanks for helping to clarify it.

My point that elected officials do have a chance to pass judgment on a SC nominee still holds.
 
Brookswood said:
Correct. The Senate used to have an internal rule - not in the Constitution - that required a super majority of 60 votes to confirm all Federal judges. That has been eliminated over the last decade.
Click to expand...
It was not a 60 vote confirmation, just 51. The 60 vote nonsense was to overcome Cloture/Filibuster to then confirm or reject. More haggling by stupid politicians.
 
Back in the day San Francisco’s Lowell High was dedicated to providing a high quality college prep education to the best of San Francisco’s students, however as it evolved promoters of affirmative action insured a high Black and Hispanic student population at the expense of San Francisco‘s Asian students. A group of Chinese parents sued, won, affirmative action was eliminated, and admission solely based on grades and test scores. Today Lowell’s student population is …

57% Asian
18% White
2% Black
https://www.publicschoolreview.com/lowell-high-school-profile

Fair? I think so.
 
Last edited:
Another 6-3 decision today regarding student loans. The court ruled that Dept of Ed went too far in granting 400 Billions dollars in loan forgiveness.

Roberts highlighted the hardship that fell on those who hadn’t taken on student debt. Imagine, he said, a high-school graduate who borrowed money to set up a lawn-care business, while a classmate instead went to college on a student loan.

“Nobody is telling the person who is trying to set up the lawn-service business that he does not have to pay his loan,” Roberts said, “even though his tax dollars are” subsidizing his classmate.
Click to expand...
 
Brookswood said:
Another 6-3 decision today regarding student loans. The court ruled that Dept of Ed went too far in granting 400 Billions dollars in loan forgiveness.
Click to expand...
I went to college in 58-62 and lived at home commuting on a motor scooter and sometimes a car. Compared to today, tuition was practically free. What drove it up at a rate far exceeding inflation? The ready availability of student loans! The cost of an education has risen in tune with the funds available to pay for it. In a day of universal availability of the Internet do we really need enormous towers, statues, stadiums, acres of lawn, and fountains, to get an education?
 
The Supreme Court has once again made a unanimous ruling 9-0. This time it was in regards to a state’s ability to remove a candidate from a Federal election. There was some disagreement on certain minor issues by four of the nine justices which they noted in their own opinions. But, overall the decision was 9-0.
 
Brookswood said:
The Supreme Court has once again made a unanimous ruling 9-0. This time it was in regards to a state’s ability to remove a candidate from a Federal election. There was some disagreement on certain minor issues by four of the nine justices which they noted in their own opinions. But, overall the decision was 9-0.
Click to expand...
The 14th does not mention the office of President, so in that respect they were correct.
 
Another 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court. They tossed out a plaintiff doctor‘s right to ask the courts to outlaw an abortion pill.
 
Last edited:
Pepper said:
No, @ElCastor the verdict not political. If so, would have gone the other way. Ruling based on plaintiffs having no standing.
Click to expand...
I was Not arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision was guided by politics. However this whole discussion reeks of politics, so, given the Forum‘s opposition to politically motivated discussion (which I fully support) please count me out.
 
I see no politics here. The doctor had no standing according to all 9 judges. That is a simple statement of fact regard the ruling.

Rueters does not speak for the Supreme Court.

People forget that the judges issue an opinion that explains why they ruled the way they did. Or they sign on to another judge’s written opinion that they agree with. One can agree or disagree with their reasoning, but it’s there to see.

Politicians and others may use a ruling for political gain. There is not much any court can do about that.
 
Last edited:
Brookswood said:
I see no politics here. The doctor had no standing according to all 9 judges. That is a simple statement of fact regard the ruling.

Rueters does not speak for the Supreme Court.

People forget that the judges issue an opinion that explains why they ruled the way they did. Or they sign on to another judge’s written opinion that they agree with. One can agree or disagree with their reasoning, but it’s there to see.

Politicians and others may use a ruling for political gain. There is not much any court can do about that.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top