Re: The greatest blunder in the Constitution is in how Supreme Court judges are appointed and approved

On May 26, 3:18�pm, Middle Class Warrior
<middle_class_warri...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2009 08:43:37 -0700, Raymond wrote:
The greatest blunder in the Constitution is in how Supreme Court judges
are appointed and approved

I can't help but wonder: Would the Framers (Framers indeed) still
believe that the president should be the one to appoint candidates to
the Supreme Court? It is doubtful. And who said that judges should serve
for life? There's nothing in the Constitution that says they serve for
life, it says "for good behavior."

Maybe the greatest blunder in the Constitution is in how Supreme Court
judges are appointed and approved. The president should not be the one
to appoint anyone so eventually powerful for life to such a high office..
Judges are nominated for political reasons only and not because they
have exceptional legal acumen. In fact, it is generally because of their
narrow-mindedness on many issues that they �are candidates in the first
place. All too often a political hack lawyer like "Cautious" Clarence
Thomas is appointed because he or she is in tune with the political
philosophy of the executive and his gang of bandits, or because some
ethnic or religious element has to be satisfied . As well, the American
people can be the losers when a hostile Senate rejects a worthy
presidential appointee. Would you ask the president to nominate a
surgeon to operate on you if you had a severe medical condition that
required an expert in the field needed to save your life? Hell no, you
would ask other surgeons and specialists - I hope. The appointment and
the voting for judges should
be made by people completely outside of government.

SEE: A Nation in Trouble
The Presidency has been the chief source of danger to the American
people since the very inception of the American Federal republic.

Several states have chosen to make judges, even state Supreme Court
judges, stand for election every so often. Their theory is that the
judiciary, like all other representatives of the people, should have to
answer to the people by getting votes. Several years ago, California
voters wisely ousted Chief Justice Rose Bird and three other
justices.

Theoretically, a jurist should not be involved in the political
spectrum. Yet, when a president appoints members of the Supreme Court,
it is only reasonable to believe that he or she will appoint people who
reflect his or her view or political agenda. After all, the president
has been voted into office on a platform that the citizens agree with
and therefore the president should do all he can to make sure that his
personal philosophy is put into place. What better way to do it than
to appoint jurists who agree with him. The problem is that the president
can, at the most, serve for eight years, and Supreme Court jurists can
serve as long as they live. �Perhaps we should start all over by calling
for a Constitutional Convention and �create a completely new
document.with modern terms and ideas.

�"Some men are born great,
� Some achieve greatness,
� and some have greatness
� thrust upon 'em."
� --Shakespeare, Twelfth Night

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that
matter"
--- --- � Martin Luther King

Both Republicans and Democrats should consider the problems with
justices being appointed by the executive.It is obvious that the court
is a readily perceived pretense

TakeBacktheCourt.org, aims to spread the word that courts matter and
elections matter.

What kind of Justices Will President Obama appoint? Regardless, the
Republicans will argue against his appointment just as Democrats fight
against Republican appointments. The process is totally political and
should not be.

The Supreme Court protects the rights that Americans cherish. Obama
could nominate one or more justices to the Supreme Court. What kind of
justices will they be? What kind of country will we live in? Watch our
new video

http://www.takebackthecourt.org/

Beyond politics: Why Supreme Court justices are appointed for life By
Roger Cossack
Law Center Contributing Editor
http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/07/columns/cossack.scotus.07.12/

Also SEE:
Law Professors Debate Reforming the Supreme Court Term limits, reducing
the number of clerks discussed

Friday, April 22, 2005

Durham, N.C. -- The United States Supreme Court was called a
"gerontocracy" at a Duke Law School conference April 9 th, likened to
the leadership cadres of the Chinese Communist Party. But that party is
a step up on the Court, said Northwestern University Law Professor James
Lindgren in defending the charge: Its leaders are required to retire at
80, while justices serve for life.

"Reforming the Supreme Court?" brought together top constitutional law
and Supreme Court scholars for a spirited discussion of the costs and
benefits of life tenure for justices, and an exploration of possible
alternatives. Organized by law professors Paul Carrington of Duke and
Roger Cramton of Cornell, who have co-authored a statutory proposal to
limit Supreme Court terms, the conference was sponsored by the Program
in Public Law.
Cont'd
http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/04/Supreme.html

" The lawgiver, of all beings, most owes the law allegiance. He, of all
men, should behave as though the law compelled him. But it is the
universal weakness of mankind that what we are given to administer we
presently imagine we own.......On the whole, the common men were fairly
content to live under lord or king or god and obey their bidding. It was
safer. It was easier. All animals-and man is no exception - begin life
as dependents. Most men never shake themselves loose from the desire for
leading and protection. Most men accept such conditions as they are born
to without further question."

� --- H.G.Wells, Outline of History

Remember that Bush nominated Harriet Miers. if you wanted a political
hack, she would be my pick. Don't forget Clarence Thomas. He is likely
the most incompetent man to ever sit on the Supreme Court.

I thought Republicans were strict constructionists. What happened, Bunky?
Who would nominate the new justice if the president didn't? Judge Roberts
perhaps?

BTW the procedure to nominate judges is spelled out in the US
Constitution. It is not easy to change the Constitution. It takes two
thirds of the House and Senate to approve and amendment before it can be
sent to the states. Three fourths of the states must approve it.

--
If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a
liberal at forty you have no brain.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Who would nominate the new justice if the president didn't? Judge
Roberts
perhaps?

Certainly not "For Sale" Roberts or any elected petty ass politician

After all, the Constitution is all about laws and who knows more about
law than people who teach and study the law?

As of June 2008 , a total of 200 institutions are ABA-approved: 199
confer the first degree in law (the J.D. degree);

Why not have students,and professors in these law schools study,
nominate, discuss, debate, and finally select candidates for approval
to the Supreme Court. Then, the presidents of the law schools meet in
a semi convention and again debate the school's choices and elect the
final choice for the court. Also, limit the judges to twelve years on
the court instead of for life
Why must these present ambulance chaser serve for life?

I certainly would accept their final choice before I would accept a
choice from the likes of Bush or Obama and approval from the likes of
Harry Reid and Senator Mitch McConnell from Kentucky.(And don't forget
Middle Class Warrior )

Obama's choice is as political as it can get. He is trying to satisfy
Catholics, women and Spanish voters.when the nomination should be
about PEOPLE and their welfare in general. What is good for Catholics,
women and the Spanish should be good for everyone in the
country.including children who have no voice in the laws.

Top 100 Law Schools in America for 2009
http://lawvibe.com/top-100-law-schools-in-america-for-2009/
.

Loading