Sen. Harry Reid, "We have too many judges on the Supreme Court."

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The problem with judges is that they are schooled in and enamored of judicial theories and usually that a conservative or a liberal reading of the constitution is what should be applied, when, of course, what should be applied is justice.

Every higher primate all the way down to monkeys understand the notion of fairness and can see when things aren't fair. What a Supreme court justice needs is access to the true feelings in his heart. A garbage man can be a thousand times more spiritually evolved than a king. What you want in a judge is a man whose whole being is committed to truth and justice.

There is nothing sacred about the law. It is our human attempt to approximate justice. When the laws require interpretation it shouldn't be on tradition or abstract judicial theory. It should be on how the law can be interpreted in a way that is most just. In every soul there is this longing for justice. Let justice be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Are you high?

You only support it so far as the judges support your own personal view of "justice". Makes me think back to the opening scene of The Godfather where the moritician is asking The Don to kill someone in the name of justice.

You want "justice" you do it with your vote in the legislative branch. You do not do it with a small body of people who's _only_ accountability is to themselves.

I said somebody committed to truth and justice and you say I said accountable to themselves. I have to assume you just don't understand English.

 

[Craig234]

The point is that the Supreme Court is at a level that can need broader views than many judges as technicians may have.

Sorry, strict constructionists, but the fact is that the constitution *does* leave room for different interpretations - you need look no futher than the vagueries of the 9th and 10th amendment to recognize that this flexibility was the founders' intent, and that it's you who are violating the constitution's clear content in *your* demand for it to be some narrow, black and white document that it's not.

Let's look at a real example on this issue.

Earl Warren was IMO the most effective Chief JUstice in the last several decades. Let's take a closer look at one of his decisions.

At the turn of the 20th century, the Supreme Court had determined that if the people wanted to vote for laws saying 'separate but equal' was the law, there was nothing in the constitution to prohibit it. Presumably, in theory, if separat but unequal was the result, blacks could sue - and all they'd have to do would be to convince the whites in power they were right. The final word on the law and the constitution said 'no problem' to having black and white public schools.

Earl Warren was never a judge. He'd been a prosecutor; the only three-term governor of CA and so popular both the Democrats and Republicans nominated him one time (he was a Republican); and he was a national politician who had been the Republican nominee for VP who nearly won in 1948.

The 'separate but equal' doctrine had not been questioned by the court for over 50 years it was in effect when he moved from non-judge to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

And he was the Chief Justice who demanded not only a rare reversal of the Court on a major doctrine that had stood for decades - but one that had strong public support, and indeed passionate public opposition to the alternative of disrupting the lives of American children to start bussing them to further schoiols for the purpose of racial integration. Talk about judicial activism! People were often up in arms in opposition, and his ruling would require the politicians to support his decision, creating large bussing operations that upset their voters. It was a risky move that could undermine the standing of the court if the politicians did not follow its direction.

But recognizing this, he decided it was important to have a unanimous decision, to reduce the chances of politicians attacking the ruling and pointing to the dissenters as an excuse not to follow the decision, politiciaing it, and he worked hard to get the justices who did not like the idea to support it - and it worked. The result was the unanimous Brown v. Board of Education ruling, which is viewed as one of the great Supreme Court decisions of the last century - and one with broad support now, that was central in the public's change to end its near century of racist policies towards blacks and to pave the way to the civil rights bills a decade later more fully ending segregation.

People take that for granted now as if it was some inevitable cultural change, but the century before the decision say otherwise, when that evolution and change did not happen.

This was the sort of ledership that came from a non-judge but a leading citizen - one which many judges appointed to the Court had failed to make for over 50 years.

Judges could go either way - continue to defend 'separate but equal', or decide that the spirit of the constitution did not allow for that doctrine, that separate is "inherently unequal".

(A point with grat relevance today to the gay marriage issue, as people ask, 'what's wrong with denying gays the *word* marriage?' if they have separate but equal civil unions).

Some people like to try to make the consitution into something it's not, to genrally oppose any changes to how it's interpreted not because they aren't right but because it violates their narrow opposition to change, they just like what they're used to. There people are the enemies of the great evolution of our coutnry that has come in part from the Supreme Court making major changes i nits rulings that are unpopular at the time and typically strongly supported as the public changes later.

When the Warren Court said that people had the *right* to birth control (Griswold v. Connecticut), there was great public outcry. When the Warren Court challenged the often abusive practices of police and said that taking advantage of people's ignorance of their rights was denying them those rights - and created the 'Miranda rights' for all people arrested to be told basic rights, in a decision of the same name, there was public outcry.

And yet most today are prouud of our criminal justice system in its fairness of reading people their rights, and don't call for the return to the routine violation of those rights.

(The exceptions - those who oppose the decisions above - are at the core of the Federalist Society who now holds four of the nine seats on the Court, and has widely infiltrated our legal system at all levels of judges and lawyers, largely through the simple advantage of career advancement by their 'networking' to help one another.)

I submit Warren as Exhibit 1 in why a non-judge can be a great way to go in choosing Supreme COut Justices.

We could go even further, and discuss non-lawyers being Justices - there's no requirement for a Justice to be a lawyer, to give Presidents the felxibility.

The question is whether people want leading citizens - or the legal technicians that might say 'why change the long-standing rule of the land, separate but equal?'

I think Reid has a good point. The poster who have poointed out that the current court with its unversal appellate experience is the exception, are right.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The problem with judges is that they are schooled in and enamored of judicial theories and usually that a conservative or a liberal reading of the constitution is what should be applied, when, of course, what should be applied is justice.

Every higher primate all the way down to monkeys understand the notion of fairness and can see when things aren't fair. What a Supreme court justice needs is access to the true feelings in his heart. A garbage man can be a thousand times more spiritually evolved than a king. What you want in a judge is a man whose whole being is committed to truth and justice.

There is nothing sacred about the law. It is our human attempt to approximate justice. When the laws require interpretation it shouldn't be on tradition or abstract judicial theory. It should be on how the law can be interpreted in a way that is most just. In every soul there is this longing for justice. Let justice be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Are you high?

You only support it so far as the judges support your own personal view of "justice". Makes me think back to the opening scene of The Godfather where the moritician is asking The Don to kill someone in the name of justice.

You want "justice" you do it with your vote in the legislative branch. You do not do it with a small body of people who's _only_ accountability is to themselves.

I said somebody committed to truth and justice and you say I said accountable to themselves. I have to assume you just don't understand English.

And you fail to realize that "justice" is a relative term?

You want to keep the law making abilities in the hands of legislatures.

 

[CaptnKirk]

In High School way back in the '50's in our Civics course one of the lesson plans was Packing the court

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It seems that Dr Phil or Oprah would be a good choice for some.
I'm leery of people who are looking for more "wiggle room" in the Constitution. One day a Bush type President may get his turn appointing a "creative" justice. After all it's just a piece of paper to interpret loosely.

Thanks, I'll pass.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
It seems that Dr Phil or Oprah would be a good choice for some.
I'm leery of people who are looking for more "wiggle room" in the Constitution. One day a Bush type President may get his turn appointing a "creative" justice. After all it's just a piece of paper to interpret loosely.

Thanks, I'll pass.

Exactly. If implicit rights can be "read into" the Constitution, they can be read right out of there, too. Wasn't one of the chief complaints of the Left about the Bush years that Bush's legal staff read the Constitution a little too loosely?

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
It seems that Dr Phil or Oprah would be a good choice for some.
I'm leery of people who are looking for more "wiggle room" in the Constitution. One day a Bush type President may get his turn appointing a "creative" justice. After all it's just a piece of paper to interpret loosely.

Thanks, I'll pass.

Exactly. If implicit rights can be "read into" the Constitution, they can be read right out of there, too. Wasn't one of the chief complaints of the Left about the Bush years that Bush's legal staff read the Constitution a little too loosely?

The Constitution has to be interpreted at some level. It's vague, and was written prior to and without considering modern problems. It has been amended numerous times, and will be changed in the future.

The role of the SCOTUS is to rule on the spirit of the document, which is Morality. That spirit must be called upon to debate issues outside of the scope of the Constitution's text.

 

[whylaff]

Could you imagine someone like a former President on the Supreme Court??

That would just be nutty.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: whylaff
Could you imagine someone like a former President on the Supreme Court??

That would just be nutty.

This is sarcasm, right?

 

[Napalm]

Two words:

Al Gore

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
That idiot Reid is at it again. The SCOTUS interprets the law (with the US constitution as the most fundamental law). Who would you have interpreting laws if not judges? Governors?? Are you serious? How about we just pick someone of the street and say "you wanna be on the SCOTUS for a while?". That's what's wrong with the process, it's all about ideology and not about someone's ability to interpret the law.

An ideological court whose rulings are based on intent instead of the law would help Senator Reid overcome that pesky constitution.

 

[Moonbeam]

cubby: And you fail to realize that "justice" is a relative term?

M: So that would mean, for example, that equal rights for women is just relative, right, and if a society decides to take womens rights way it will make it OK? The notion that women have rights is no better a truth then that women are inferior, correct?

cubby: You want to keep the law making abilities in the hands of legislatures.

M: So you want legislatures to be able to take away say, women's rights, but the court not be able to decide that such a law would be unconstitutional, right?

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I think we should have 15, with 5 randomly chosen for every case.

I don't care really who he picks. But I guess I should care but. Even if I did care it's not gonna change anything.

Hmmmmmm, your idea works but I'd take it one step further. The Judges should only serve a 4 year term they shouldn't have a life ride. It's just pure BS. And once they ran they can no longer be chosen again.

But I believe this should go for all politics like the senate and house.

Oh well... I doubt it's gonna change any time soon.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: senseamp
I think we should have 15, with 5 randomly chosen for every case.

I don't care really who he picks. But I guess I should care but. Even if I did care it's not gonna change anything.

Hmmmmmm, your idea works but I'd take it one step further. The Judges should only serve a 4 year term they shouldn't have a life ride. It's just pure BS. And once they ran they can no longer be chosen again.

But I believe this should go for all politics like the senate and house.

Oh well... I doubt it's gonna change any time soon.

I don't think you get it.

SCOTUS Justices are given life-long terms to free them from politics. They can make decisions that are politically unsavory but morally right because they are not going to be out of a job in four years.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: senseamp
I think we should have 15, with 5 randomly chosen for every case.

I don't care really who he picks. But I guess I should care but. Even if I did care it's not gonna change anything.

Hmmmmmm, your idea works but I'd take it one step further. The Judges should only serve a 4 year term they shouldn't have a life ride. It's just pure BS. And once they ran they can no longer be chosen again.

But I believe this should go for all politics like the senate and house.

Oh well... I doubt it's gonna change any time soon.

I don't think you get it.

SCOTUS Justices are given life-long terms to free them from politics. They can make decisions that are politically unsavory but morally right because they are not going to be out of a job in four years.

Please...
There are many western countries in which their judges only serve a single 10-20 year term. None of this lifetime appointment crap.
Lifetime appoint on the Supreme Court only leads to a President selecting judges right out of high school.

 

[ProfJohn]

Ron Paul!!!!

Sure he is totally unqualified, but think of all the fun it would induce.

I can imagine all the other judged looking at him thinking 'WTF is wrong with you?'

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: senseamp
I think we should have 15, with 5 randomly chosen for every case.

I don't care really who he picks. But I guess I should care but. Even if I did care it's not gonna change anything.

Hmmmmmm, your idea works but I'd take it one step further. The Judges should only serve a 4 year term they shouldn't have a life ride. It's just pure BS. And once they ran they can no longer be chosen again.

But I believe this should go for all politics like the senate and house.

Oh well... I doubt it's gonna change any time soon.

I don't think you get it.

SCOTUS Justices are given life-long terms to free them from politics. They can make decisions that are politically unsavory but morally right because they are not going to be out of a job in four years.

Please...
There are many western countries in which their judges only serve a single 10-20 year term. None of this lifetime appointment crap.
Lifetime appoint on the Supreme Court only leads to a President selecting judges right out of high school.

10-20 years is a lot longer than four. I believe that terms need to be sufficiently long, so that SCOTUS decisions are not used to benefit corporations, who will give ex-Justices cushy jobs after their term.

 

[ProfJohn]

My crazy idea:

Appoint judges to 18 year terms and limit them to one term.

One judge is appointed on each odd numbered year. That way it occurs on off election years and keeps politics to the minimal.

This allows each President to appoint 2 per term and no more than 4 total and keeps the judiciary a little closer to the electorate.

Also, with such a system you would almost always have a court that would be in the range of 5-4.

If such a system was in place now we would have 4 Bush judges, 4 Clinton judges and one Bush 41 judge about to be replaced with an Obama judge.

Only during the FDR and Nixon-Reagan ears would one party have more than 5 judges on the panel.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
It seems that Dr Phil or Oprah would be a good choice for some.
I'm leery of people who are looking for more "wiggle room" in the Constitution. One day a Bush type President may get his turn appointing a "creative" justice. After all it's just a piece of paper to interpret loosely.

Thanks, I'll pass.

And I'm leery of people who say they don't want wiggle room, but adopt radical right-wing interpretations like the Federalist Society, who ignore what the constitution says.

Sometimes the 'wiggle room' ruling is what the constitution says. Things like Miranda rights are not a 'wiggle room' legislation from th ebench, they're implementing the constitution.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
That is a direct quote from an interview with Andrea Mitchell.

What? Am I mistaken in the assumption that a judicial position on the highest court in the country would best be served by someone who is a judge?

He was saying that he wants to see a governor or a seasoned trial attorney take the open court position, but I found his comment odd. I wonder if he has someone in mind.

That was some of the stupidest crap I've heard come out of Reid yet.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: AndrewR
That is a direct quote from an interview with Andrea Mitchell.

What? Am I mistaken in the assumption that a judicial position on the highest court in the country would best be served by someone who is a judge?

He was saying that he wants to see a governor or a seasoned trial attorney take the open court position, but I found his comment odd. I wonder if he has someone in mind.

That was some of the stupidest crap I've heard come out of Reid yet.

So, Earl Warren was unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court? The crap is coming from you.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: n yusef
The Constitution has to be interpreted at some level. It's vague, and was written prior to and without considering modern problems. It has been amended numerous times, and will be changed in the future.

Then if society finds the Constitution fails to address modern issues, amend it again, which is certainly more of a democratic process than allowing 5 of 9 to say "This is what the framers would've done if they'd thought of this!"

The role of the SCOTUS is to rule on the spirit of the document, which is Morality.

I'm sure many here will be quite amused to hear your theories on how our national morality is mandated in the Constitution. We are talking about the U.S. Constitution, aren't we? For a document which is supposedly about morality, it contains very little guidance on the subject.

That spirit must be called upon to debate issues outside of the scope of the Constitution's text.

No, that 'spirit' should be called upon to realize that the Constitution was designed to limit the power of the government, and if an issue is 'outside the scope of the text', the Court probably shouldn't be involved.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
cubby: And you fail to realize that "justice" is a relative term?

M: So that would mean, for example, that equal rights for women is just relative, right, and if a society decides to take womens rights way it will make it OK? The notion that women have rights is no better a truth then that women are inferior, correct?

Moonie, this logic is lacking. If he says 'justice is relative' and you provide ONE example when (arguably) it's not, you still haven't addressed the billions of other situations in which determining what is 'just' is much, much harder. You said there's a longing for justice in every soul, but the definitions of justice in those souls are as diverse as the souls themselves.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
cubby: And you fail to realize that "justice" is a relative term?

M: So that would mean, for example, that equal rights for women is just relative, right, and if a society decides to take womens rights way it will make it OK? The notion that women have rights is no better a truth then that women are inferior, correct?

Moonie, this logic is lacking. If he says 'justice is relative' and you provide ONE example when (arguably) it's not, you still haven't addressed the billions of other situations in which determining what is 'just' is much, much harder. You said there's a longing for justice in every soul, but the definitions of justice in those souls are as diverse as the souls themselves.

This reminds me of an old story I heard:

Once there was a contest between the Greeks and the Persians to see who could create the perfect painting and a room with two canvas walls on opposite sides was divided with a curtain so that each side could work in anonymity, one from the other. The Greeks created a masterpiece of unsurpassed beauty, but the Persians polished the walls to mirror perfection and when the curtain was removed nobody could tell which was the greater creation.

Think about it. Has not the longing for the rights of women always been there, occluded by the dust of superstition and tradition? How does the soul advance and progress if there is no source of the longing. Because you have not uncovered the source of ones conscience does not mean others have not or will not. What was hard in the past was made easy today by the blood and sweat of millions.

You to your technocrat lawyers and me to my visionaries. All men are created equal, but equal to what? If a man moves toward that to which he strives then I advise you to go for the highest ideals. From the absolute you came and to the absolute you can return.

And from what law university did Solomon acquire the legal scholarship to determine the true Mother of a child? If you do not know love you will be able to render no real justice. And if you love your every action will be justice, no?

But then I guess you will now tell me that love is relative. I wonder why that would be. I bet it wouldn't be that the dust you keep on your walls is there to protect you from the pain you felt when love died so young. No, it couldn't have anything at all to do with self hate.

Give me a judge whose love is so great that he will die to his own self hate.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
cubby: And you fail to realize that "justice" is a relative term?

M: So that would mean, for example, that equal rights for women is just relative, right, and if a society decides to take womens rights way it will make it OK? The notion that women have rights is no better a truth then that women are inferior, correct?

Moonie, this logic is lacking. If he says 'justice is relative' and you provide ONE example when (arguably) it's not, you still haven't addressed the billions of other situations in which determining what is 'just' is much, much harder. You said there's a longing for justice in every soul, but the definitions of justice in those souls are as diverse as the souls themselves.

This reminds me of a story I heard about a Irishman who, from a young age, found a great longing to become a Catholic priest. At the age of 17, while in Seminary, or wherever it is that priests are trained, the initiates were allowed to attend a wondering mistral show, in which a young woman in black stockings danced. Right on the spot that 17 year old realized his true heart's desire. May you be hit by some similar kind of brick.