Should Washington's elderly leaders hand over power to a younger generation? Americans weigh in

[rgp]

The justices of the Supreme Court are tasked with interpreting and applying the law in the way the legislators who enacted it intended. What you propose might be construed as turning the SC justices into vote seeking politicians. Not what the drafters of the Constitution intended.

"turning the SC justices into vote seeking politicians. "

True but , which is worse .... a person trying to gain votes by [hopefully] good performance ? ..... or a person smug in their untouchable position ?

And no, I'm not arguing ..... just thinkng out-loud.

 

[ElCastor]

"turning the SC justices into vote seeking politicians. "

True but , which is worse .... a person trying to gain votes by [hopefully] good performance ? ..... or a person smug in their untouchable position ?

And no, I'm not arguing ..... just thinkng out-loud.

Well, OK, let me do a little thinking out loud. As It stands the SC is not an elected body. For it to become one would require a drastic and highly controversial amendment to the Constitution — an amendment that frankly has about as much chance as the proverbial fart in a whirlwind. Returning to reality, I personally believe the founders were correct in designing a judicial system that was insulated from political pressure.

 

[ElCastor]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with our Constitution. The only problem seems to be that there are no enforcement mechanisms in place when violations occur in the Executive Branch. Laws can be ruled unConstitutional, but when a president violates the Constitution, the only enforcement mechanism seems to be impeachment, and that's obviously insufficient.

Maybe we need to attach some penalties to violations so they actually mean something. People shouldn't be able to say, "Nope, I'm not going to abide. What are you going to do about it?"

Impeachment is obviously insufficient? Huh? The president is an employee of the people. Impeachment is just an administrative process, the equivalent of getting fired. Once out of office, if he committed a crime, murdered his wife, embezzled, whatever, then try him in a court of law and if found guilty, fine him, hang him, or twenty years in SingSing, as appropriate. That‘s fine, but I really don’t think we want Congress shipping the prez off to SingSing.

 

[rgp]

Well, OK, let me do a little thinking out loud. As It stands the SC is not an elected body. For it to become one would require a drastic and highly controversial amendment to the Constitution — an amendment that frankly has about as much chance as the proverbial fart in a whirlwind. Returning to reality, I personally believe the founders were correct in designing a judicial system that was insulated from political pressure.

OK, I respectfully disagree ...... As I said earlier, I'm opposed to lifetime appointments, I think maybe the old boys got that one wrong ??

 

[ElCastor]

OK, I respectfully disagree ...... As I said earlier, I'm opposed to lifetime appointments, I think maybe the old boys got that one wrong ??

Maybe they did, or as time and attitudes change, maybe the Constitution needs adjustment. As I recall it has been “adjusted” 27 times. Will Roe v Wade be sufficient to trigger such a change. I doubt it, but who knows?

 

[Sunny]

About the lifetime appointments to the SC, could it be a whole different ball game now that "lifetime" is generally a lot longer than it was in the days of the Founding Fathers? In those days, people didn't live nearly as long.