Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies at 87

[Skybird]

I dont get it, never got. What is the argument behind this for-remaining-lifetime thing?


I think German Federal Constitutional Court is like that, too, but has changing presidencies. I am not certain.


But seating for lifetime in positions at the very top, imo simply is dangerous, and against the principle of why in politics they hold frequent elections.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I think German Federal Constitutional Court is like that, too, but has changing presidencies. I am not certain.

Maybe you should learn the details of your own high court before you start criticizing ours.

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I dont get it, never got. What is the argument behind this for-remaining-lifetime thing?


I think German Federal Constitutional Court is like that, too, but has changing presidencies. I am not certain.


But seating for lifetime in positions at the very top, imo simply is dangerous, and against the principle of why in politics they hold frequent elections.

Federal judges are Nominated by the president, and then approved by Congress, lifetime appointment for Federal Judges minimizes the influence of the executive and legislative branches of government on the Supreme Court and the other Appellate Courts (there are 13). They deal almost exclusively with Constitutional Law with the SCOTUS being the final arbiter of Constitutional questions.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I dont get it, never got. What is the argument behind this for-remaining-lifetime thing?


I think German Federal Constitutional Court is like that, too, but has changing presidencies. I am not certain.


But seating for lifetime in positions at the very top, imo simply is dangerous, and against the principle of why in politics they hold frequent elections.

Basically it's so they do not have to curry favor to get re-elected. I think a single ten year term would be better.

Now we get to witness some hypocrisy topped with a Clintonesque does of hair-splitting by the Republicans as they rush to nominate and confirm one more SCJ.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Basically it's so they do not have to curry favor to get re-elected. I think a single ten year term would be better.

Yeah, one term, long enough of not needing to collect favours, but then automatic end of term after a time frame as you mentioned, eight years, ten, I would be fine with that.


Else it ends like with judges at the European court who serve short terms and miust please the heads of governments to get called in for another term. It has been designed this way so that the EU court has little interest to piss the EU memberstate'S giovenrment too often.

[em2nought]

Now we're being spoon fed some B.S. that her dying wish was to "not" have Trump select her replacement.

[Skybird]

The ideological balance of the nine-member court is crucial to its rulings on the most important issues in US law.
In 2016, Senate Republicans blocked Democratic President Barack Obama's pick for the US top court. At the time, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell justified the move on grounds that it was an election year.
But on Friday Senator McConnell said he intended to act on any nomination Mr Trump made.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54216710

Double standards from the usual suzspects.

McConnel also was the one who insisted on that the Senate will block any impeachment NO MATTER THE EVIDENCE, and that he does not care for facts and right and wrong, truth and untruth, guilt and non-guilt.

A moral moron of hand-selected quality. Like so many actors in politics. They seem to vary only in the sheer amount of their individual unscrupulousness.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The ideological balance of the nine-member court is crucial to its rulings on the most important issues in US law.
In 2016, Senate Republicans blocked Democratic President Barack Obama's pick for the US top court. At the time, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell justified the move on grounds that it was an election year.
But on Friday Senator McConnell said he intended to act on any nomination Mr Trump made.

Politics is about power and the wise and judicious use of that power. When Obama nominated Merrick Garland in March 2016 the Senate was controlled by the GOP 54 to 44 seats. There was almost no chance that Garland would be confirmed. Obama would have known that. Right now the President is a Republican and the GOP controls the Senate. Failure to use that power would be a political mistake.

One of Obama's more ironic statements ... "Elections have consequences".

[Skybird]

What its about.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...-pick-n1240655

Power. Just this.

[August]

Originally Posted by em2nought

Now we're being spoon fed some B.S. that her dying wish was to "not" have Trump select her replacement.

So says Maxine Waters.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by em2nought

Now we're being spoon fed some B.S. that her dying wish was to "not" have Trump select her replacement.

On her death bed surrounded by her relatives no less

ACLU attorney chosen by Clinton

[Jimbuna]

US President Donald Trump has said he will next week nominate a woman to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, escalating a political row over her successor.

"I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman," Mr Trump said at a campaign rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina on Saturday. "I think it should be a woman because I actually like women much more than men."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54216710

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Yeah, one term, long enough of not needing to collect favours, but then automatic end of term after a time frame as you mentioned, eight years, ten, I would be fine with that.


Else it ends like with judges at the European court who serve short terms and miust please the heads of governments to get called in for another term. It has been designed this way so that the EU court has little interest to piss the EU memberstate'S giovenrment too often.

Exactly, one long-ish term and that's it. Because the person who is chosen to serve is not the same person 25 years later.

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Basically it's so they do not have to curry favor to get re-elected. I think a single ten year term would be better.

Now we get to witness some hypocrisy topped with a Clintonesque does of hair-splitting by the Republicans as they rush to nominate and confirm one more SCJ.

Ten year term is a colossally bad idea, because the Justices have no "term limit", there is a very robust vetting process, and because of that, of the 112 Justices that have served on the court, only one has ever been fired (he resigned before the end of impeachment proceedings) that was Abe Fortas in 1969.

What I find appalling, is the level of violence being threatened by liberals if Trump nominates a successor.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by MaDef

..., only one has ever been fired (he resigned before the end of impeachment proceedings) that was Abe Fortas in 1969.

Indeed, Fortas' "Jewish seat" on the Supreme Court remained vacant for a year until it was filled by Jewish "the Notorious RBG!"(Justice Ginzburg)...for a well-rounded demographic representation on the highest court.