How About These Propositions?

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Some in Congress propose Constitutional Amendments to let voters affirm or reject Supreme Court decisions and appointments to the Court, at the following national election. That is, every 2 years you get a say for what SCOTUS is up to.

James Madison noted how judges bent the Constitution's firm and fixed word definitions to find meanings the Founders never intended.

 

[Liar]

How many desicions does the SCOTUS make in 2 years? Give or take.

 

[eyer]

Some in Congress propose Constitutional Amendments to let voters affirm or reject Supreme Court decisions and appointments to the Court, at the following national election. That is, every 2 years you get a say for what SCOTUS is up to.

Actually, legally, they'd have to repeal (by Amending) the entire Constitution first, since what they're proposing is most definitely a democratic form of government...

...in direct opposition to the republican form of government the Constitution dictates any federal and every State government must be.

No matter, though...

...relevant concern for such constitutional legality has long left the barn.

PARTY LIKE IT"S 1984!​

 

[homewa]

Some in Congress propose Constitutional Amendments to let voters affirm or reject Supreme Court decisions and appointments to the Court, at the following national election. That is, every 2 years you get a say for what SCOTUS is up to.

James Madison noted how judges bent the Constitution's firm and fixed word definitions to find meanings the Founders never intended.

It's a horrible idea, there's a reason that the Supreme Court are educated and are expected to have a legal background. Because interpretation isn't about democracy, or it shouldn't be. Hell half our problems right now with SCOTUS stem from people following party lines too strictly. Voters are not qualified to analyze most of what the Supreme Court deals with by and large. Now if we want their opinions to change, we should elect people who will amend the constitution or publish legislation that will alter the way the Supreme Court looks at a case.

 

[Conager]

It's a horrible idea, there's a reason that the Supreme Court are educated and are expected to have a legal background. Because interpretation isn't about democracy, or it shouldn't be. Hell half our problems right now with SCOTUS stem from people following party lines too strictly. Voters are not qualified to analyze most of what the Supreme Court deals with by and large. Now if we want their opinions to change, we should elect people who will amend the constitution or publish legislation that will alter the way the Supreme Court looks at a case.

You have a lot of faith in three years of law school being an "education." There is no requirement that a Justice have any legal background or training. I think it would be interesting if a non-lawyer did get appointed.

 

[homewa]

You have a lot of faith in three years of law school being an "education." There is no requirement that a Justice have any legal background or training. I think it would be interesting if a non-lawyer did get appointed.

True. I should say that the confirmation process is what I have faith in; although that has become horribly partisan and less focused on one's ability to interpret law (or potentially it's always been that way). I know I'm certainly not qualified to make legal interpretations, and even if I was, I wouldn't have the time to do the research that the Supreme Court has to do, so any decision I made would be inherently less studied and therefore most likely worse. I assume this is true for most people, which is why I wouldn't want voting to replace the Supreme Court's decisions, excluding new legislation and amendments obviously. It would be interesting if they could get a non-lawyer, a legal philosopher, an ethicist, an economist, it would turn the whole court on its ear I think.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

It's a horrible idea, there's a reason that the Supreme Court are educated and are expected to have a legal background. Because interpretation isn't about democracy, or it shouldn't be. Hell half our problems right now with SCOTUS stem from people following party lines too strictly. Voters are not qualified to analyze most of what the Supreme Court deals with by and large. Now if we want their opinions to change, we should elect people who will amend the constitution or publish legislation that will alter the way the Supreme Court looks at a case.

Yet SCOTUS made some awful decisions in our history.

 

[homewa]

Yet SCOTUS made some awful decisions in our history.

Not as bad as the mob would make though.