Recusal is one of those rules judges get to pick to comply with... I rest my case.
|
Recusal is one of those rules judges get to pick to comply with... I rest my case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hi Tom,
Well how about this...
Judges could be elected by the people for a limited term. Say 4 years or whatever you think is appropriate under your system.
Campaigning for elections by judges has strict provisions. Limited to such things as age, schooling, i.e. where they went to high school and where they obtained their legal qualifications. Other qualifications and relevant work experience making them suitable for the job.
Basically I am suggesting a very boring and limited 'political' campaign by judges. Speculation by the judges themselves and the media in relation such things as," believes in a original intent interpretation of the constitution", or "believes the constitution is a living entity", is strictly forbidden for the duration. You get to vote for SCOTUS judges only knowing their qualifications and work experiences. The amount of money spent on advertising is strictly limited and strictly policed. No donations and the like.
Don't get too upset it is only a suggestion.
Tut
A bit radical Tut and they surely don't need another excuse for an election over there. They do need to remove the political element from the appointments though, whether that is done with fixed terms, say 20 years or appointment by election by members of congress rather than the President nominating them. It seems to me the whole process is a bit like a raffleQuote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Not radical at all... that is the way most local state and local judges are selected and it seems to work.
I'd be happy with term limits .
Hi Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Well there you go the answer was in your own backyard all the time.
I just found this quite by accident.
Sca.cobbcountyga.gov/meet_judges.htm
From the information these judges have provided can you tell which party they favour?
Tut
You may have noticed I did not bring up objections to how states and townships select judges . That system is quite accountable ;and as you point out ,not subject to the objections that people on this discussion brought up about judges needing to be above the political process.
I was critiquing the Federal system only. Quite frankly ;states and locals are free to pick any process they are comfortable with so long as it complies with Constitutional laws and rights . The judges in my town I know by name and they have my full trust and support.
Hello again Tut:
That'll never work. From MY perspective, I'd want to KNOW how a judge felt about capital punishment before I voted for him. I don't want to GUESS.
In any case, how is that NOT putting our rights up for a vote?
excon
We elect our judges in Texas and the detractors say that makes it too political. Hogwash, I say it makes therm accountable.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
True, but under the current system of appointment you have no say anyway. Voting in this situation is only a slightly better option.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
As it stands they are up for decree regardless of the political persuasion of SCOTUS . For example, 'traditional intent' interpretation is a political position. 'Living breathing' interpretation is also political. Regardless of the emphasis it will always be a political decision handed down by SCOTUS.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon,2981993
Tut
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hi Speech,
Yes, it is political and one needs to be careful not to turn the judicial system into a political football. That's way I suggested using strong guidelines for the candidates. No politics form anyone allowed for a period before and after. That is, until the count is finalized. Especially no comment from the media.
Tut
Yup... many of them are stealth even the ones like Kagan and Sotomayor who did their best to obfuscate during confirmation hearings .Quote:
but under the current system of appointment you have no say anyway
Look at Souter appointed by GHW Bush. He never would've been appointed if he didn't hide his politics. Stevens appointed by Ford has trended liberal also.
Hello again,
Rick Santorum says that contraception isn't good for the country, but if he's president, he won't do anything about it.
Do you believe him?
excon
What could he possibly do about it ? He wouldn't be Obama with infinite powers of executive orders bypassing the will of the Legislative branch.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yeah, that's what I thought about your right wing Governor of Florida.. But, WITH a majority in the Senate and the House (which are definite possibilities), I think he could swing it.
More importantly, I think he'd TRY.
excon
I don't believe he would. As a conservative I'm pretty sure he'd take a States power position . I've heard him make that case many times. I've yet to hear him make a case that it is a federal issue.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I do NOT believe that he's a small government conservative. He's certainly for a FEDERAL law against gay marriage. He'd tell the states that passed it to go suck... What makes you think he'd be different about birth control?
excon
LOL, we already know these conservatives only want rules for poor people, but not rich people. That's why they want a small government, but one big enough to tell you what to do in your own home, and with who, and how. But lets corporations do as they please.
Newt was correct with the term right wing social engineering. But corporate sodomy is just fine.
Funny tal since Margaret Sanger the founder of planned Parenthood was an advocate of aborting the poor and black. I'd say it's progressives who in the name of helping the poor keep them in sevitude .
Ex ;the reason that there will ultimately be a national law about marriage is because of the 'full faith and credit' clause of the Constitution which requires states to honor the contracts made in other states.
Yes. What I don't believe is why ABC was so preoccupied with contraception when the economy is in the tank, Iran is enriching uranium at an underground facility and posturing in the gulf, we're paying 9 times the price of jet fuel to buy biofuel, gas prices are about to spike, the administration is squirming its way around gun running, making illegal recess appointments and wasting taxpayer billions of social engineering of its own. Who gives a damn about contraception?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Rick Santorum, that's who. HE brought it up FIRST. Doncha think it's a viable line of questioning?
excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:37 PM. |