Full Version: The Supreme Court...
Interesting questions on a multiple number of topic, yet all pertain to the regulation of the Supreme Court.
Questions for Debate:
1.) What kind of court it be with Roberts? How do you get your answer?
2.) Should the nomination of a Justice be the president's privy? Or should a Justice become a Justice in an election determined popular vote?
3.) Should the court be changed with every president? Would it be fair? Would it be an outlet in the highest court for a president's personal agenda?
4.) Should the size of the court be increased, decreased, or remain the same? Why? What are the pros and cons of increasing, decreasing or leaving it alone?
Questions for Debate:
1.) What kind of court it be with Roberts? How do you get your answer?
2.) Should the nomination of a Justice be the president's privy? Or should a Justice become a Justice in an election determined popular vote?
3.) Should the court be changed with every president? Would it be fair? Would it be an outlet in the highest court for a president's personal agenda?
4.) Should the size of the court be increased, decreased, or remain the same? Why? What are the pros and cons of increasing, decreasing or leaving it alone?
1.) What kind of court it be with Roberts? How do you get your answer?
The court will begin to head back to the way the founders intended it to be. There would still be to many activist judges legislating from the bench and the originalist will still be out numbered.
2.) Should the nomination of a Justice be the president's privy? Or should a Justice become a Justice in an election determined popular vote?
Constitutionally the president chooses the judge nominee. People choose the president and judge appointments is a campaign issue. I got to side with the constitution.
3.) Should the court be changed with every president? Would it be fair? Would it be an outlet in the highest court for a president's personal agenda?
The court should not change with every president. Separation of powers is a valued part of our constitution. The president would have to much power if he had complete control of who is on the courts during his term
4.) Should the size of the court be increased, decreased, or remain the same? Why? What are the pros and cons of increasing, decreasing or leaving it alone.
Keep the court the way it is. Two little members on the supreme court would give to much power to those currently on it. I have allot less trust for three lawyers with the power of the supreme court then I do for nine. If there were to many members then it would just unbalance the system. The founders put nine up for a reason and I trust the founders of this nation more then any politician up in Washington.
The court will begin to head back to the way the founders intended it to be. There would still be to many activist judges legislating from the bench and the originalist will still be out numbered.
2.) Should the nomination of a Justice be the president's privy? Or should a Justice become a Justice in an election determined popular vote?
Constitutionally the president chooses the judge nominee. People choose the president and judge appointments is a campaign issue. I got to side with the constitution.
3.) Should the court be changed with every president? Would it be fair? Would it be an outlet in the highest court for a president's personal agenda?
The court should not change with every president. Separation of powers is a valued part of our constitution. The president would have to much power if he had complete control of who is on the courts during his term
4.) Should the size of the court be increased, decreased, or remain the same? Why? What are the pros and cons of increasing, decreasing or leaving it alone.
Keep the court the way it is. Two little members on the supreme court would give to much power to those currently on it. I have allot less trust for three lawyers with the power of the supreme court then I do for nine. If there were to many members then it would just unbalance the system. The founders put nine up for a reason and I trust the founders of this nation more then any politician up in Washington.
1.) What kind of court it be with Roberts? How do you get your answer?
I wish I knew.
My gut feeling is that there will be no change at all. I have the sense that Roberts is a conservative in the same way that O'Connor is: conservative on economic issues and moderate on social issues. I believe the Dobson crowd will be sorely disappointed.2.) Should the nomination of a Justice be the president's privy? Or should a Justice become a Justice in an election determined popular vote?
The judiciary is supposed to be apolitical. So, I could not support that they be nominated by popular vote. Although, if the Court continues to take on divisive social issues-- I might change my mind.
3.) Should the court be changed with every president? Would it be fair? Would it be an outlet in the highest court for a president's personal agenda?
This question presumes that the Court is political. It shouldn't be. But assuming it is political (pretty good assumption), then I think it violates the separation of powers to have the Court change with every administration.
4.) Should the size of the court be increased, decreased, or remain the same? Why? What are the pros and cons of increasing, decreasing or leaving it alone?
Definitely not decreased. There may be an argument to increase its size so that we have better representation for all citizens. Again, this assumes that the Court is political.
3.) Should the court be changed with every president? Would it be fair? Would it be an outlet in the highest court for a president's personal agenda?
This absolutely the most hideous proposal I've ever heard of. A separate, but independent judiciary is part of the checks and balance system and the life time appointments somewhat dampen political aspects of the court. The presidency is already too powerful--historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. called it The Imperial Presidency in his book on the Nixon era.
You say the court, would you include federal district and appellate court judges? That would absolutely kill any continuity or stability in the federal courts.
When you say changed with every president, do you mean every four (or in some cases would it be 8) years or literally every president? If this proposal had been the law in 1968, Nixon would have gotten a new court. Would he have been able to appoint a new court after his reelection in 1972? When he resigned in 1974, Would Ford have got to pick a new court? Then two years later Carter would have had a go at it. I don't think you thought this question through adequately. Bad idea!
The idea would not be fair--it would be utterly stupid. Of course such an arrangement would be an outlet for the president's personal agenda, but it should never devolve into anything like that.
This absolutely the most hideous proposal I've ever heard of. A separate, but independent judiciary is part of the checks and balance system and the life time appointments somewhat dampen political aspects of the court. The presidency is already too powerful--historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. called it The Imperial Presidency in his book on the Nixon era.
You say the court, would you include federal district and appellate court judges? That would absolutely kill any continuity or stability in the federal courts.
When you say changed with every president, do you mean every four (or in some cases would it be 8) years or literally every president? If this proposal had been the law in 1968, Nixon would have gotten a new court. Would he have been able to appoint a new court after his reelection in 1972? When he resigned in 1974, Would Ford have got to pick a new court? Then two years later Carter would have had a go at it. I don't think you thought this question through adequately. Bad idea!
The idea would not be fair--it would be utterly stupid. Of course such an arrangement would be an outlet for the president's personal agenda, but it should never devolve into anything like that.
1. Hard to say. I don't expect any huge change. As I've said before, becoming a Supreme Court Justice seems to bring a certain dignity and gravitas to most candidates, and mellows out their more extreme opinions. From what I can tell, Roberts seems like he will follow the same pattern.
2. I say let the President do it. In fact, I don't think that judges should ever be elected, as happens in many local courts. I would favor life-time appointments for all levels of judges. Judges should never have to hustle for votes.
3. Not a good idea at all. Presidents would have way too much power (and the Executive Branch is already much too strong, in my opinion.) Stick with life-time appointments.
4. The current size seems about right. Enough members to allow for a good flow of ideas back and forth, few enough to avoid utter chaos.
2. I say let the President do it. In fact, I don't think that judges should ever be elected, as happens in many local courts. I would favor life-time appointments for all levels of judges. Judges should never have to hustle for votes.
3. Not a good idea at all. Presidents would have way too much power (and the Executive Branch is already much too strong, in my opinion.) Stick with life-time appointments.
4. The current size seems about right. Enough members to allow for a good flow of ideas back and forth, few enough to avoid utter chaos.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.