Nice ad hominem. Going to address the point or just fall back on random attacks?
They donāt even need to amend. There is nothing magical about 9 justices. Itās been different sizes throughout its history but has been 9 for over 100 years now I think. They could just make it 13, 21, 35 whatever number and get a representative sample of all demographics and genders to interpret the constitutional issues. If itās too many to rule on, they could simply randomly assign 5, 7 , 11 whatever odd number they want to any one particular case. It would also allow them to rule on more cases with a larger court.
and to avoid āpacking the courtā they could add two justices every other year until they got to the desired size.
Y_T, how could you say such a thing, that she is not being bribed?? You take that back!!
1 Like
I think Neil Gorsuch was very well qualified for SC. I also disagree with him on most things. But he seemed like a well qualified Federal Judge when he was appointed. Even if I feel Mitch stole the seat and forever changed the course of Senate confirmation hearings and hyper politicized the court.
I think Kavanaugh is a political hack who had no business being elevated to the high court. And hysterics at his senate hearing should have immediately disqualified him.
I donāt know enough about ACB but her judicial leanings have her closer to Gorsuch than Kavanaugh on the qualifications scale.
Thomas has been a terrible Justice since his appointment by GHWB but has only been openly corrupt and bought by Harlan Crow since the early 2000s as far as I know. As there are way more receipts than required to come to this obvious conclusion.
As to KBJ, I feel she was perfectly qualified where she was a DEI pick or not. There is never one best candidate for a job like SC Justice. Iām sure there are dozens if not hundreds who would fit the bill.
Does that answer you @R_Daneel_Olivaw ?
1 Like
Isnāt it amazing that basically no one was worried about making changes to the SCOTUS since FDR until the liberals no longer had at worst a 4-4-1 split?
538 under Nate Silver did an analysis of court rulings several years ago and found that the āliberalā justices voted together significantly more often than the āconservativesā in split decisions. This supposed 6-3 conservative split has seen largely the same thing happen in split decisions. There have been some 6-3 but most split decisions have been the 3 liberals, 1 of the conservatives (often 1 of the Trump nominees) or sometimes 2 if Roberts joins them. But somehow the liberal wing almost always votes together.
You donāt think it would be reasonable to require Supreme Court Justices to have experience as judges?
When you are the right side of the legal issue itās easy to vote I. Lock step. When you need need to use tourtured leagal rulings from theological 3 and 4 hundred years ago to support your position, itās hard to build consensus.
2 Likes
There is no requirement of that in the constitution and there have been some good and bad justices that did not have experience as a Judge prior to appointment to the high court.
Though I think itās been quite some time since a non-federal judge has been confirmed. I think GWB tried it but withdrew the nomination.
Much better.
I donāt agree that Kavanaugh should have been disqualified for speaking out about how he was being treated. If you have issue with his jurisprudence or qualifications, fine. But he was called a rapist based on the 30+ year old say so of a woman who couldnāt even tell you which year it happened, where it happened, or which summer month it happened. I think anyone would have gotten pretty pissed after a couple of weeks of that, especially if they were innocent.
Easy to get consensus when suffering from group think.
Itās about as amazing as the evolution of the answer to the question, āwhen does it become ātoo lateā in a Presidentās term of office for the Senate to review nominations to fill SCOTUS vacancies?ā.
Iām just suggesting it as a reasonable requirement if you want justices picked on merit. If itās open to whomever, then the system is open to patronage appointments, rather than merit.
1 Like
In the United States today, race/gender are part of life experience. I think we can get to a place in the future where at least race is no longer a meaningful differentiator, but I donāt think we will ever get there on gender.
Iād agree on gender but that would require defining what a woman is for some people.
And Fish (meant Maphistos). If you want to complain about playing hardball with judicial nominations Iād suggest you take it up with Biden (Thomas, Bork) and Harry Reid (killed the filibuster for it). In fact, Iām pretty sure a certain Senator from Kentucky warned Democrats that they would likely regret that move and sooner than they may have thought.
Iām not sure what youāre talking about.
Someone said judges should be picked on merit. I suggested a reasonable merit criteria for a Supreme Court justice. If youāre going to be a top level judge, you should probably have experience being a judge at some level. Presumably county judge isnāt good enough. Maybe as a Federal Court judge? Or a Federal Court of Appeals? Maybe you also need X years of experience at that level of judge.
Right now the process of selecting judges in the U.S. seems really wishy washy.
History says otherwise
Sorry meant that for Maphistos and read the wrong post header. Iāll edit.
Itās the most trivial of stretches to assume Trump thinks that DEI hiring is bad.
Itās directly in Agenda 47 that he wants to eliminate or slash the pay of federal workers (particularly educators) who are in charge of DEI initiatives.
Project 2025 goes further, still eliminating all federal employees who ever promoted DEI, but also prosecuting private corporations who promote DEI for inciting racism.
How so?
and using judges has avoided this?