Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
Still, allowing one branch to choose the leadership in another branch flies in the face of checks and balances. They had to have known that.
|
Huh? That's the very DEFINITION of checks and balances. That's why the Senate can remove the President from office and the President cannot fire judges or anyone in Congress.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel, the confused
Stupid was allowing the executive and legislative to choose the judicial. The process by which members are appointed should be independent of one another, as they are with the executive and legislative. This makes impropriety more difficult.
|
Will, I have to ask what you think "checks and balances" means because it's most definitely what I learned in 7th grade civics class. Or in any other class. The Supreme Court has never been elected, and all Federal judges are appointed. There are no exceptions. Each branch has control over the other. That's the underlying theory behind the whole system, and I think you've got something else in mind.
As for your "stupid" examples, Alito being friends with Chertoff means nothing until you can prove it clouds his judgement. And I can argue that it doesn't despite what I think of both of them. That said, Scalia probably should have recused himself in the Cheney case, and Alito definitely should have.
One other thing - SCOTUS is not the only body that is appointed by the President.