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 a***en. 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 isappointed 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 thelosers 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
may 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 can breathe. Perhaps
we should start all over by calling for a Constitutional Convention
and create a completely new do***ent.
And, since the original do***ent is printed on hemp, let the chimp
president smoke it and we can move on to a meaningful Constitutional
Convention.
"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
Take Back the Court!
Less than one year from now, the voters will decide the future of the
Supreme Court. The next appointments to the Court will almost
certainly be made by the president elected in November 2008, and
confirmed by a Senate with new members elected in the same cycle. It's
crucial that voters understand that their votes will help determine
the shape of the Court for many years to come. PFAW's new site,
TakeBacktheCourt.org, aims to spread the word that courts matter and
elections matter.
What Kind of Justice Will the Next President Nominate?
The Supreme Court protects the rights that Americans cherish. The next
president 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 leader****p 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
|
