Hillary Clinton a Supreme Court Justice? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 05-27-2008, 11:37 AM

Quote:

View: Next Stop, Supreme Court?
Source: Washington Post
posted with the TFP thread generator

Next Stop, Supreme Court?
By James Andrew Miller
Wednesday, May 21, 2008; A19

As the primary season nears a merciful end, the Clinton-Obama conflict is giving way to Obama-Clinton conjecture. Many in the Democratic Party support a so-called dream ticket of both, with Barack Obama at the top. They believe Hillary Clinton has earned the No. 2 spot through her feisty, never-say-die campaign, and they worry that her supporters will stay home in November if she isn't part of the ticket.

Opponents counter that in terms of the electoral vote, Clinton might not help carry any states that wouldn't already go for Obama. Moreover, the possibility of both Clintons ganging up on a President Obama could make life more difficult for him than anything the Republicans could ever put together.

But there is another way to foster party unity without forcing a political marriage.

It's likely that the next president will face at least one Supreme Court vacancy. Obama should promise Hillary Clinton, now, that if he wins in November, the vacancy will be hers, making her first on a list of one.

Obama and Clinton have wound up agreeing on nearly every major issue during the campaign; at the end of the day, they share many orthodoxies. Unless the Supreme Court were to get mired in minuscule details of what constitutes universal health care, Obama could assume that he'd be pleased with most Clinton votes, certainly on major issues such as abortion.

Obama could also appreciate Clinton's undeniably keen mind. Even Clinton detractors have noted her remarkable mental skills; she would be equal to any legal or intellectual challenge she would face as a justice. The fact that she hasn't served on a bench before would be inconsequential, considering her experience in law and in government.

If Obama were to promise Clinton the first court vacancy, her supporters would actually have a stronger incentive to support him for president than they would if she were going to be vice president. Given the Supreme Court's delicate liberal-conservative balance, she would play a major role in charting the country's future; there is no guarantee that a Clinton vice presidency would achieve such importance.

For nearly a year and a half, Clinton has been fighting a bruising battle. Many appointees and officials from her husband's administration have turned their backs on her; she has lost the support of friends she had every reason to believe would stand by her. She has campaigned tirelessly only to discover that, according to polls, more than half the populace mistrusts her. Yes, she can still hope for 2012 or 2016, but why trust that she will be viewed differently next time around? (A recent CNN "quick poll" found that nearly 70 percent of respondents believed someone other than Clinton would be the first female president.)

Instead of subjecting herself to a long wait and another possible defeat, she could don one of those roomy black robes, make a potentially ineradicable impact on the course of the republic -- and never again have to worry about being liked.

Senate confirmation would be all but certain, even putting aside the gains that Democrats are likely to make in November. Clinton could be confirmed in the current alignment. Democrats would want to support their new president, and those who like Clinton would vote for her. Members of either party who aren't fans might also be happy enough about her leaving the Senate to vote to confirm her.

Obama could also trust that Clinton would maintain her image as a fighter after arriving at the court. Her tenacity has never been more apparent. President Obama would engender praise (at least from Democrats) at the prospect of Hillary going toe to toe with Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito. Clinton's gumption and determination might make her one of the most powerful forces ever on the court, particularly when it comes to swaying other justices when the court is closely divided.

Bill Clinton has set the family bar high in terms of overcoming setbacks. It's not inconceivable that Hillary could rise again and one day be elected president -- but it couldn't happen for at least four years. An Obama promise to nominate Clinton to the Supreme Court would more than go a long way toward forging the unity Democrats want and need for November. It would preserve Clinton's role as a dedicated public servant and guarantee her the role of a lifetime.

Quote:

View: Hillary: Too Old For High Court
Source: Mother Jones
posted with the TFP thread generator

Hillary: Too Old For High Court
There's been lots of chatter lately suggesting that Barack Obama should promise Hillary Clinton a seat on the Supreme Court as a sort of runner-up prize and inducement for her to finally get out of the presidential race. Bloggers have debated her fitness for the job, whether she'd want it, or whether it would even be a good idea. But all of this is much ado about nothing. There is no way Hillary, or her husband for that matter, will ever warm a seat on the high court, for one major reason: She is simply too old.

Like the rest of the federal judiciary, Supreme Court justices serve for life. That's why Republicans over the past 15 or 20 years have made a very active and conscious effort to fill those seats with the youngest possible candidates as a way of preserving their influence for generations. The average age of GOP nominees for Supreme Court justice since 1981, including O'Connor, is 50, a full decade younger than Hillary. (Indeed, there's not a person on the court today who was older than 60 when nominated.)

Democrats haven't had a chance to pick as many candidates, but they clearly haven't made age as much of a priority. No doubt that will change should they retake the White House in the fall because, as Republicans have shown, the math is simply too compelling. Consider that when George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas in 1991, Thomas was only 43 years old. If he hangs on as long as the court's current veteran John Paul Stevens, 88, the country will be stuck with nearly a half-century of Thomas jurisprudence.

Compare that with the tenure of Clinton-appointee Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was nominated at age 60, a year younger than Hillary is now. If she matches Stevens' longevity, she'd still have 15 fewer years on the job than Thomas. Certainly the court could benefit from the turnover that comes with shorter tenures, but if you're Obama, looking to create some kind of liberal legacy on the court, a 62 or 65-year-old Hillary isn't it.

Instead, my money is on Neal Katyal, the current liberal rock start of Supreme Court advocates. Katyal argued and won the critical Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case in 2005, in which the court ruled that the Bush administration's military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay violated the Geneva Conventions. He clerked for Stephen Breyer as well as the dean of liberal law, Guido Calabresi, on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Katyal is well-connected, too, having worked in the Clinton administration Justice Department as an adviser for National Security Affairs.

Best of all, Katyal is but 38, not to mention a total stud, and of South Asian descent. Of course, with his national security background, his resume also puts him first in line for a host of jobs in an Obama administration (he's already done some work for him), from attorney general to solicitor general. As someone who's been profiled in Vanity Fair, Katyal may not even be interested in becoming one of the brethren, but his age certainly makes him a compelling candidate. At least he's young enough to outlast Clarence Thomas.

This is an interesting thought. Hillary as an SCJ as a consolation prize to bowing out gracefully now...

I have always been interested in the SCJ confirmation process, and never really thought about the idea of lower age being better for the party. It's an interesting take.

I don't know what to think or expect if Hillary is a SCJ... her NY Senate voting has been very different than what I expected when she first was elected. I don't disdain her as much as I did when she first was in office. Her voting record has been less offensive to me and more in line with my own ideology than the liberal Democrats.

Willravel · 05-27-2008, 11:47 AM

She'll have to be a federal judge first. It's not an official rule, but nominating someone who was just a lawyer and who has no judicial experience is just stupid.

boatin · 05-27-2008, 11:52 AM

Come on, Will. Not doing it because it's stupid isn't sufficient reason not to do it. Have you seen Washington in the last 20+ years?

I suspect there's plenty of people who'd disagree with your sentiment, also. It's got some pros and cons, but it's certainly an interesting notion. Points for creativity, also!

dc_dux · 05-27-2008, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

She'll have to be a federal judge first. It's not an official rule, but nominating someone who was just a lawyer and who has no judicial experience is just stupid.

will...some of the best Supreme Court justices (IMO) had no federal judicial bench experience....Earl Warren, Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurther...and more recently, one of the worst (IMO)..William Rehnquist.

And you will recall that Bush nominated his good friend Harriet Miers (currently under a House subpoena and contempt of Congress order). He withdrew her name not because of lack of judicial experience, but because she was perceived to be not conservative enough.

In any case, I just dont see Hillary having interest. She is a politician by nature, not a jurist. I would put more money on her running for governor of NY in 2010 rather than languish as a back bencher in the Senate, where most of her party members support Obama.

The_Jazz · 05-27-2008, 12:11 PM

Rehnquist was never a federal judge. He did very well as Chief Justice, even if I didn't agree with quite a few of his decisions. Why was he "good" and not "bad? As CJ, it was his job to move things along efficiently and assign decisions to be written when he was in the majority.

Lewis Powell wasn't a judge either. Neither was Thurgood Marshall. Same with Earl Warren. Those are three really powerful names in court history, and they wrote some big decisions.

It's not stupid at all. Nor is it a prerequisit, although it looks that way from the current crop of justices. Rumor has it Mario Cuomo turned down a nomination during Bill's term because he wanted out of politics, but he never served as a judge (to the best of my knowledge). Being a federal judge before is neither a help nor a hinderance. If you disagree, I'd love to hear why.

As for Hillary herself, I think that it would be a very smart move on her part.

dc_dux · 05-27-2008, 12:13 PM

How could I forget Marshall!

Bear Cub · 05-27-2008, 12:22 PM

She'd make a terrible judge, pure and simple. Just look at how great a judge she was of her hubby's character. *snicker*

And for christ's sake, what have we come to when we're giving away judicial seats as consolation prizes?

The_Jazz · 05-27-2008, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Cub

She'd make a terrible judge, pure and simple. Just look at how great a judge she was of her hubby's character. *snicker*

And for christ's sake, what have we come to when we're giving away judicial seats as consolation prizes?

Hugo Black got his because he supported the New Deal in the Senate. It's been done before and will keep being done. How the justice gets their seat doesn't matter so much as what they do with it, IMO. Most of Nixon's appointees are classic examples.

teresita · 05-27-2008, 01:25 PM

I still say the best thing for this country is Hillary President, Obama as Vice. Open your eyes, she can get things done, he can guide us with his vision, they can both learn from each other, and together I think anything that is positive change is possible. And in 8 years, he can still be president. It does not get better than this, and it probably never will.

The_Jazz · 05-27-2008, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teresita

I still say the best thing for this country is Hillary President, Obama as Vice. Open your eyes, she can get things done, he can guide us with his vision, they can both learn from each other, and together I think anything that is positive change is possible. And in 8 years, he can still be president. It does not get better than this, and it probably never will.

Exactly who can she get things done with? Her legislative record in the Senate isn't particularly noteworthy, either positively or negatively.

Besides, Obama as the nominee is pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point, barring something that drives the superdelegates away from him in droves. Not to mention the fact that the path from the Vice Presidency to the Presidency isn't exactly well paved. In modern times and barring those who gained office upon the death of the president (or resignation), only GHW Bush has managed to do so. You have to go back to Calvin Coolidge to find one. So maybe that's not as big a sop as you think.

Got your eyes open yet?

Deltona Couple · 05-28-2008, 04:44 AM

I am sure I will get some "polite" rebuttal for this, but personally I don't think Hillary would be a good president. From what I have seen in her political ackground, she tend to be an off-the-cuff type person. She shows signs of letting her emotions make her decisions instead of a greater good. And in all honesty, we don't need a president that leads our country on their emotions. We need someone who can be level headed uder pressure. Now I am not saying that Obama is like that, because until he started showing up as a potential candidate, I really didn't know much about the man, but in my opinion, Hillary just isn't the right person for the job.

Cynthetiq · 05-28-2008, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deltona Couple

I am sure I will get some "polite" rebuttal for this, but personally I don't think Hillary would be a good president. From what I have seen in her political ackground, she tend to be an off-the-cuff type person. She shows signs of letting her emotions make her decisions instead of a greater good. And in all honesty, we don't need a president that leads our country on their emotions. We need someone who can be level headed uder pressure. Now I am not saying that Obama is like that, because until he started showing up as a potential candidate, I really didn't know much about the man, but in my opinion, Hillary just isn't the right person for the job.

maybe that's the case, but how do you feel about her being a Supreme Court Justice... since that's the discussion point of the OP.

Willravel · 05-28-2008, 09:33 AM

The bottom line:
She'd be just another partisan and corrupt justice.

That's the absolute last thing we need. We've got as many partisan and corrupt hacks on the Supreme Court as were running for president last year. Scalia went duck hunting with Chenet at the same time Cheney was a named defendant in a case before the Supreme Court. Alito presided over a case involving a company in which he'd invested hundreds of thousands of dollars. Alito sees terrorism cases despite being best friends with Michael Chertoff (head of DHS). The best part? They vote down party lines on nearly every decision. Of the 24 5/4 decisions in the 2006-2007 term, 19 broke across ideological lines. They invented law to steal an election.

We should be fixing the Supreme Court, not making it worse. The day Hillary becomes a Supreme Court justice is the day I devote my life to making sure that Justices will be elected by the people as it's clear the system is completely broken.

host · 05-28-2008, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

The bottom line:
She'd be just another partisan and corrupt justice.

That's the absolute last thing we need. We've got as many partisan and corrupt hacks on the Supreme Court as were running for president last year. Scalia went duck hunting with Chenet at the same time Cheney was a named defendant in a case before the Supreme Court. Alito presided over a case involving a company in which he'd invested hundreds of thousands of dollars. Alito sees terrorism cases despite being best friends with Michael Chertoff (head of DHS). The best part? They vote down party lines on nearly every decision. Of the 24 5/4 decisions in the 2006-2007 term, 19 broke across ideological lines. They invented law to steal an election.

We should be fixing the Supreme Court, not making it worse. The day Hillary becomes a Supreme Court justice is the day I devote my life to making sure that Justices will be elected by the people as it's clear the system is completely broken.

To me, you seem to have made a compelling case for appointing someone of your perceived Clinton partisanship to the court. Otherwise, there is no countering vote to what you so aptly described is happening now, in the court's decisions.

I see Clinton as a centrist, maybe skewed a bit to the right. Who do you see as a better choice, if you want to counter the partisan bias, yet lessen the overall partisanship on the court and in the appointment process?

Willravel · 05-28-2008, 10:12 AM

It's not about having even partisanship. That's putting a band-aid on the hemorrhage. Actually, it's more like having a hemorrhage in each arm and widening the wound on the left so that you bleed out evenly.

What we need are impartial justices. Really, honestly, and truly impartial justices. I know a few judges in my area who would probably do a damn good job keeping politics out of the Supreme Court, but the real issue is with confirmation. Alito's nomination to replace Sandra Day O'Connor made me want to vomit. Why, on god's green earth, do we allow a president, king of partisanship, to choose a judge to sit on the highest court in the land? It's (pardon my french) fucking stupid.

Cynthetiq · 05-28-2008, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

It's not about having even partisanship. That's putting a band-aid on the hemorrhage. Actually, it's more like having a hemorrhage in each arm and widening the wound on the left so that you bleed out evenly.

What we need are impartial justices. Really, honestly, and truly impartial justices. I know a few judges in my area who would probably do a damn good job keeping politics out of the Supreme Court, but the real issue is with confirmation. Alito's nomination to replace Sandra Day O'Connor made me want to vomit. Why, on god's green earth, do we allow a president, king of partisanship, to choose a judge to sit on the highest court in the land? It's (pardon my french) fucking stupid.

Just because a president chooses, doesn't mean it's automatic.

that's the point of the confirmation hearings and being confirmed by congress. there are still CHECKS and BALANCES which is the whole point of the way that everything has been created via the US Constitution. So you're stating that what the framers did was stupid?

Quote:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the
Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present
concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent
of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and
Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the
United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for,
and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest
the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the
President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

how is it stupid?

The_Jazz · 05-28-2008, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

how is it stupid?

QFT. It's one of the original parts of the constitution. All that's been altered is the number of judges, not the selection procedure.

And Will, your precious nonpartisan judges were nominated by either the President (if they're federal) or the governor (if they're state). If they're local, well, in my opinion they don't count in this discussion since they're deciding traffic tickets. But that's my opinion. Just like it's your opinion that Hillary would do a terrible job.

Packing the Supreme Court with your cronies goes back to the Jackson administration. And it backfires ALL the time. I offer Hugo Black as a quintessential example, given that Nixon was after a true conservative and got a liberal-leaning moderate.

Willravel · 05-28-2008, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Just because a president chooses, doesn't mean it's automatic.

It does when the same party rules the executive and legislative. Like it did when Alito was appointed in January of 2006.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

that's the point of the confirmation hearings and being confirmed by congress. there are still CHECKS and BALANCES which is the whole point of the way that everything has been created via the US Constitution. So you're stating that what the framers did was stupid?

It's one among many mistakes that were made. Any document made by fallible people is open to being fallible. That's why they developed the amendment system. Don't agree with slavery? Amend it. Want women to vote? Amend it. Don't want partisan justices?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

how is it stupid?

Political parties are a method of overriding checks and balances. Nowhere is that more evident than in the past 6 years of policy and our current Supreme Court.

Cynthetiq · 05-28-2008, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

It does when the same party rules the executive and legislative. Like it did when Alito was appointed in January of 2006.

It's one among many mistakes that were made. Any document made by fallible people is open to being fallible. That's why they developed the amendment system. Don't agree with slavery? Amend it. Want women to vote? Amend it. Don't want partisan justices?

Political parties are a method of overriding checks and balances. Nowhere is that more evident than in the past 6 years of policy and our current Supreme Court.

So for 6 years the rest of the process hasn't been stupid? By your statement because it culminated in the past 6 years, the previous 226 years were just fine? So the framers should have not made the Constitution as they did since 6 years while Willravel was around it made him vomit because of party swings of legislative and executive banches actually meeting and meeting in such a way that disagreed with Willravel? Maybe for some it was actually not a stalemate and that things got done quickly and efficiently to their statisfaction.

There are ALWAYS coming checks and balances.... so while maybe a party controls the executive and legislative, it won't control it forever. Seems to me then 6 years out of 232 seems to be working for this "social experiment."

So you've stated how to circumvent it, but you didn't address how it's stupid.

Willravel · 05-28-2008, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

So for 6 years the rest of the process hasn't been stupid?

Strawman. The past 6 years are further evidence. I never said the last 6 years was the only example.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

So the framers should have not made the Constitution as they did since 6 years while Willravel was around it made him vomit because of party swings of legislative and executive banches actually meeting and meeting in such a way that disagreed with Willravel? Maybe for some it was actually not a stalemate and that things got done quickly and efficiently to their statisfaction.

They had no way of knowing the power political parties would hold in the future (thus the amendment process). 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

There are ALWAYS coming checks and balances.... so while maybe a party controls the executive and legislative, it won't control it forever. Seems to me then 6 years out of 232 seems to be working for this "social experiment."

The way things are going, for now and into the foreseeable future, it will always be the republicans or democrats in power. Binary oligarchy.

Why is "social experiment" in quotations?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

So you've stated how to circumvent it, but you didn't address how it's stupid.

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.

Stupid is:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel, the decent

Scalia went duck hunting with Chenet at the same time Cheney was a named defendant in a case before the Supreme Court. Alito presided over a case involving a company in which he'd invested hundreds of thousands of dollars. Alito sees terrorism cases despite being best friends with Michael Chertoff (head of DHS). The best part? They vote down party lines on nearly every decision. Of the 24 5/4 decisions in the 2006-2007 term, 19 broke across ideological lines. They invented law to steal an election.

Any process that can lead to this level of corruption needs reform.

Cynthetiq · 05-28-2008, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Strawman. The past 6 years are further evidence. I never said the last 6 years was the only example.

They had no way of knowing the power political parties would hold in the future (thus the amendment process). 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.

The way things are going, for now and into the foreseeable future, it will always be the republicans or democrats in power. Binary oligarchy.

Why is "social experiment" in quotations?

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.

Stupid is:

Any process that can lead to this level of corruption needs reform.

So in summary, you're calling the framers stupid for making that executive and legislative choose the judicial? is that a correct assessment?

Quote:

The way things are going, for now and into the foreseeable future, it will always be the republicans or democrats in power. Binary oligarchy.

to quote you "strawman" since during the framers time it was also primarily a two party system.

It is in quotes to remind one that it is still an experiment it is only 232 years old. It hasn't lasted the time and duration of Chinese Dynasties or The Roman Empire wherein what you were born into was probably what you'd live with for your lifetime.

if we were talking just 3 people I'd tend to agree with you. But you're talking about 2/3 congress and 1 president. A bit hard to get that much collusion going, especailly for any length of time. Again, from my personal understanding of how the framers intended anything was that it wasn't to PREVENT things from happening 100% but to ensure that it wasn't going to last a lifetime.

Willravel · 05-28-2008, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

So in summary, you're calling the framers stupid for making that executive and legislative choose the judicial? is that a correct assessment?

Completely wrong. There's a massive difference between being stupid and doing something stupid. George W. Bush is stupid. The framers made a stupid decision among many brilliant decisions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

to quote you "strawman" since during the framers time it was also primarily a two party system.

Yes, a brand spanking new party system which had not yet explored all avenues of corruption like they have now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

if we were talking just 3 people I'd tend to agree with you. But you're talking about 2/3 congress and 1 president. A bit hard to get that much collusion going, especailly for any length of time. Again, from my personal understanding of how the framers intended anything was that it wasn't to PREVENT things from happening 100% but to ensure that it wasn't going to last a lifetime.

2/3 of a republican congress and a republican president. It's not "collusion", it's simple partisan politics which manifests in a partisan SCOTUS.

The_Jazz · 05-28-2008, 12:27 PM

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.

Willravel · 05-28-2008, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

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.

It's the opposite of checks and balances. They need to remain 3 separate branches in order to actually be functional in stopping a runaway branch. How can the judicial branch stop a runaway executive when they're picked by said executive? How can the judicial branch stop the legislative when they're okayed by the legislative?

They must be independent or they can't perform the functions necessary to balance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

One other thing - SCOTUS is not the only body that is appointed by the President.

That's true. I'm more comfortable with a president choosing staff members and other executive positions, though.

Can you imagine the president and SCOTUS choosing senate members?

Cynthetiq · 05-28-2008, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

It's the opposite of checks and balances. They need to remain 3 separate branches in order to actually be functional in stopping a runaway branch. How can the judicial branch stop a runaway executive when they're picked by said executive? How can the judicial branch stop the legislative when they're okayed by the legislative?

They must be independent or they can't perform the functions necessary to balance.

they are independent. where do you find that they aren't? the SCOTUS doesn't report to the President and the President doesn't report to the Congress. Congress holds the President accountable, as does the SCOTUS hold the laws that Congress creates accountable.

Just because they are picked doesn't mean that they are enmeshed and disfunctional. Please prove that it is as such, and the current administration isn't a fair example since you've got 200 more years of history to wade through as well.

The president doesn't pick ALL the SCOTUS, just the ones that move on during his tenure. So how can you state that it is again not independent? Could the SCOTUS know in the future who is going to be president?

I can't imagine SCOTUS and the POTUS picking the Senate because that's not the way the framers created it. I believe that there were many times that the framers were stating very simply that the average person isn't educated enough to pick each and everyone to run the government, but to allow representation to handle it for them.

But again, you are still not showing how it's stupid.

The_Jazz · 05-28-2008, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

It's the opposite of checks and balances. They need to remain 3 separate branches in order to actually be functional in stopping a runaway branch. How can the judicial branch stop a runaway executive when they're picked by said executive? How can the judicial branch stop the legislative when they're okayed by the legislative?

I am reduced to this: Oh. My. God.

How many examples do you want of the judiciary exercising their supremacy over the legislative and executive branches? Go read Marbury v. Madison. The Marshall Court basically stated that they could overturn laws that were unconstitutional. Would you like a list of which federal laws they overturned? As for the judicial branch stopping a runaway executive? That's not their responsibility. It's the Senate's. They impeach all folks in the Executive branch that are impeachable.

Will, every single Federal judge in the United States is selected for his views. Every. Single. One. Not necessarily his political views, but definitely for his judicial views. And every single one is reviewed by the Senate and approved or rejected. Every. Single. One.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

They must be independent or they can't perform the functions necessary to balance.

Exactly how to you propose selecting "independent" judges? By lottery? Election? It seems to me that you're proposing a very radical change that you haven't thought through.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Can you imagine the president and SCOTUS choosing senate members?

Can you imagine the amendment necessary to allow them to do so? Oh, wait. Can you imagine birds flying out of my ass?

Willravel · 05-28-2008, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

As for the judicial branch stopping a runaway executive? That's not their responsibility. It's the Senate's. They impeach all folks in the Executive branch that are impeachable.

Apparently not any more.

Our SCOTUS is broken. We've lost civil liberties, equal protection, free speech... we've got school segregation. It's basically impossible to sue big corporations before the SCOTUS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Exactly how to you propose selecting "independent" judges? By lottery? Election? It seems to me that you're proposing a very radical change that you haven't thought through.

If they're going to be partisan, they should be elected.

Cynthetiq · 05-28-2008, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Apparently not any more.

Our SCOTUS is broken. We've lost civil liberties, equal protection, free speech... we've got school segregation. It's basically impossible to sue big corporations before the SCOTUS.

If they're going to be partisan, they should be elected.

and over time those things may change yet again.

you've had things like slavery, women's sufferage, prohibition all come and go... based on the CHECKS and BALANCES of the process.

i don't see where free speech is lost, where school is segregated... please explain.

The_Jazz · 05-28-2008, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Apparently not any more.

Our SCOTUS is broken. We've lost civil liberties, equal protection, free speech... we've got school segregation. It's basically impossible to sue big corporations before the SCOTUS.

If they're going to be partisan, they should be elected.

Will, this is getting difficult, either intentionally or not. You seem to be either willfully ignorant of the Constitution, its basic themes and how it has worked for the past 226 year or you never learned about it.

Many of the things you refer to are laws that have not been heard before SCOTUS. School segregation? When there are still open court cases from the 60's and 70's still being imposed on various school systems around the country?

As far as suing big corporations before SCOTUS, well, you've never been able to do that. SCOTUS never hears first tier cases. They're not designed to. You can appeal something to SCOTUS, and I can give you all sorts of examples of cases involving corporations from the past 6 years.

Willravel · 05-28-2008, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Many of the things you refer to are laws that have not been heard before SCOTUS. School segregation? When there are still open court cases from the 60's and 70's still being imposed on various school systems around the country?

Supreme Court Quashes School Desegregation

I'm pretty sure Host brought this to my attention, which means it's probably already on TFP somewhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

As far as suing big corporations before SCOTUS, well, you've never been able to do that. SCOTUS never hears first tier cases. They're not designed to. You can appeal something to SCOTUS, and I can give you all sorts of examples of cases involving corporations from the past 6 years.

I'm surprised you're so frustrated with me when it's clear you aren't doing your homework on this one.

You apparently think that checks and balances is actually one branch choosing the leadership of another branch, blatantly choosing people who would agree with them instead of unbiased people.

You think that the supreme court hasn't dealt with school segregation, big oil (can you say exxon oil spill?) or even any big corporations.

djtestudo · 05-28-2008, 03:18 PM

You have to love when the striking down of an affirmative action policy is spun into the return of school segregation.

I have to wonder how much of Will's dislike for the selection process comes from the court leaning slightly conservative and therefore being disagreeable to him.

Especially since George W. Bush has managed to pack the Supreme Court with exactly two justices. That would be the same as Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush. Reagan got three, including the retired Sandra Day O'Conner. There is even John Paul Stevens still hanging-on from the Ford administration.

Shauk · 05-28-2008, 03:37 PM

No, hell no, The whole reason I don't want to vote for her to begin with is because she's too conservative and censorship happy. She doesn't believe in freedom. She wants to shelter everyone from reality, she thinks media should be controlled, freedom of expression? pfft, no, no room for that.

If shes in the business of putting criminals away, then fine, but if she wants to preside over courts that determine the bigger fates as to what defines right and wrong? no thanks.

The_Jazz · 05-28-2008, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

I'm surprised you're so frustrated with me when it's clear you aren't doing your homework on this one.

You apparently think that checks and balances is actually one branch choosing the leadership of another branch, blatantly choosing people who would agree with them instead of unbiased people.

You think that the supreme court hasn't dealt with school segregation, big oil (can you say exxon oil spill?) or even any big corporations.

Will, not only do I think that checks and balances is one branch chosing the ENTIRITY of another branch, that is, in fact, what it actually means. The power to appoint the judiciary by the executive is CHECKED by the legislature and BALANCED by their ability to impeach any sitting judge. It is a check and a balance. Wow, look at that.

And again, when, in the entire history of any Western Democracy with appointed judges, a set that includes but is not exclusive to the United States, has any single judge been appointed by those in power when that judge will not agree with those who appointed him? I just want one example of any judge anywhere that was appointed in a checked and balanced system because he was "unbiased". It doesn't happen. It has never happened. It will never happen. "Unbiased" is not part of the job description. It is, in fact, an actual part of the job description for a judge to have opinions. Some might argue that it is the very nature of the job. An unbiased judge would be an absolute nightmare.

Now maybe you mean "unbiased" in a political sense. You haven't stated that, but I can see where that's what you logically mean. If that's the case, it's also completely unworkable because it would be a huge infringement on the free speach of anyone who ever hoped to even possibly be considered for the bench. You're proposing McCarthyism, only with Republicans and Democrats replacing Communists.

Of course SCOTUS has dealt with corporations, desegregation and the like. It's what they do. It's their job. That doesn't mean that you, Willravel, can have your suit against Exxon or whoever heard by SCOTUS just because you want to. If it has merits or the lower courts erred in judgement or they have some other reason to hear it, they will. Not every case automatically gets heard. You really make me believe that you're not paying any sort of attention at all here.

Willravel · 05-28-2008, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

I have to wonder how much of Will's dislike for the selection process comes from the court leaning slightly conservative and therefore being disagreeable to him.

If that were the case why would I be so pissed about Hillary being appointed? She and I both agree on a lot, including really big things like healthcare.

It's about the decisions falling exactly on ideological lines. That's the very definition of bias, and that's what has no place on the bench.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Now maybe you mean "unbiased" in a political sense.

Wait, what? Of course I meant politically. What's the alternative?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

That doesn't mean that you, Willravel, can have your suit against Exxon or whoever heard by SCOTUS just because you want to.

This is scaring me, Jazz. Did you do any research on the SCOTUS before posting? Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill
Exxon had a known alcoholic ship captain who was piloting 10 million gallons of oil into the Prince William Sound, devastating a unique natural environment and causing one of the largest ecological disasters in history. In the original trial, Exxon had their asses handed to them and was ordered to pay $287 million damages and $5 billion punitive. This case is now before the Supreme Court, and it will likely reach it's decision before July.

Here's the clincher: Scalia said he wanted to overturn the decision COMPLETELY. Oh, and he invests heavily in Exxon... and this was long before he was forced to recuse himself after a shitstorm in the media.

djtestudo · 05-28-2008, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

If that were the case why would I be so pissed about Hillary being appointed? She and I both agree on a lot, including really big things like healthcare.

It's about the decisions falling exactly on ideological lines. That's the very definition of bias, and that's what has no place on the bench.

Or, it means that those who happen to be considered "liberal" or "conservative" have certain things they believe, and therefore disagree on those cases.

Willravel · 05-28-2008, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

Or, it means that those who happen to be considered "liberal" or "conservative" have certain things they believe, and therefore disagree on those cases.

Are you familiar with the process by which one becomes appointed to the SCOTUS? They have to answer questions under oath like (paraphrasing) "Have you ever considered how you would rule on a case involving abortion?" $5 says that particular question forced several justices to perjure themselves. Why would they ask such questions? Well, that's simple. Justices are supposed to be (politically) unbiased. And yet their decisions fall down party lines consistently.

snowy · 05-28-2008, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Are you familiar with the process by which one becomes appointed to the SCOTUS? They have to answer questions under oath like (paraphrasing) "Have you ever considered how you would rule on a case involving abortion?" $5 says that particular question forced several justices to perjure themselves. Why would they ask such questions? Well, that's simple. Justices are supposed to be (politically) unbiased. And yet their decisions fall down party lines consistently.

Ahh, but Will, you're forgetting to take into account the precedent Ruth Bader Ginsberg set with her confirmation hearings when she refused to answer questions regarding her positions on politically charged issues.

Willravel · 05-28-2008, 06:57 PM

People vote for elected officials based on what they say they will and won't do. Likewise, the Senate votes on a SCOTUS nominee based on what he or she says when questioned. If the person in question lies, they misrepresent the manner in which they will serve.

Ginsberg should have answered the questions, but likewise there shouldn't have been such political bullshit going on in the Senate. I love Ginsberg. I agree with a lot of her politics, but I worry that she brings her politics to the bench.

This is why I take issue with political parties. Labeling something you are evokes allegiance. It makes one less likely to disagree with those who use the same label. That's dangerous.

Cynthetiq · 05-28-2008, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

If that were the case why would I be so pissed about Hillary being appointed? She and I both agree on a lot, including really big things like healthcare.

It's about the decisions falling exactly on ideological lines. That's the very definition of bias, and that's what has no place on the bench.

Wait, what? Of course I meant politically. What's the alternative?

This is scaring me, Jazz. Did you do any research on the SCOTUS before posting? Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill
Exxon had a known alcoholic ship captain who was piloting 10 million gallons of oil into the Prince William Sound, devastating a unique natural environment and causing one of the largest ecological disasters in history. In the original trial, Exxon had their asses handed to them and was ordered to pay $287 million damages and $5 billion punitive. This case is now before the Supreme Court, and it will likely reach it's decision before July.

Here's the clincher: Scalia said he wanted to overturn the decision COMPLETELY. Oh, and he invests heavily in Exxon... and this was long before he was forced to recuse himself after a shitstorm in the media.

so what you're saying is you'd rather not have ANY idea as any kind of descriptor to an individual? That happens all the times, heck it even happens with pitching movies... "It's kind of like Die Hard, but on a ship." "Well, it's like Purple Rain, but with rap music." People are not able to digest long diatribes and making absolute sense out of them. Labels work to some degree.

Let's go back to Civics class. I didn't get one until sophomore year in HS, but it's really as simple as this.

US Constitution Articles I-III click to show

Quote:

Article. I. - The Legislative Branch Note
Section 1 - The Legislature

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section 2 - The House

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.) (The previous sentence in parentheses was modified by the 14th Amendment, section 2.) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Section 3 - The Senate

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) (The preceding words in parentheses superseded by 17th Amendment, section 1.) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; (and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.) (The preceding words in parentheses were superseded by the 17th Amendment, section 2.)

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Section 4 - Elections, Meetings

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall (be on the first Monday in December,) (The preceding words in parentheses were superseded by the 20th Amendment, section 2.) unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

Section 5 - Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Section 6 - Compensation

(The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.) (The preceding words in parentheses were modified by the 27th Amendment.) They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section 9 - Limits on Congress

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article. II. - The Executive Branch Note
Section 1 - The President Note1 Note2

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

(The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.) (This clause in parentheses was superseded by the 12th Amendment.)

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

(In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.) (This clause in parentheses has been modified by the 20th and 25th Amendments.)

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section 4 - Disqualification

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article III. - The Judicial Branch Note
Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Quote:

View:
Source: Constitution Center
posted with the TFP thread generator

The Constitution establishes a system of separation of powers among the three branches of government. The framers of the Constitution derived their ideas about the separation of powers from the French philosopher Montesquieu, and they divided the U.S. government into the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Article I gives Congress the power to make the laws; Article II gives the president the power to enforce the laws; and Article III gives the judiciary the power to interpret the laws.

But the framers did not make the boundaries between those branches absolute. Instead, they created a system of checks and balances, in which each branch exercised some restraint on the power of the other. For instance, Congress has the power to pass laws, but the president can veto those laws. The president can make treaties, but the Senate must approve them. Judges have life tenure to give them independence, but the president and the Senate together select judges. James Madison described the principle of checks and balances in Federalist 51: “Ambition must be made to counter ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place.”

This system of checks and balances is so intricately woven throughout the Constitution that some scholars believe it negates the separation of powers. According to political scientist Richard Neustadt: “The constitutional convention of 1787 is supposed to have created a government of ‘separated powers.’ It did nothing of the sort. Rather, it created a government of separated institutions sharing powers.”

separation of powers the constitutional doctrine of dividing governmental power among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches

checks and balances the constitutional doctrine in which each branch of government shares some of the powers of the other branches in order to limit their actions

As you've posted, they do hear cases, they agree to hear cases based on the merits of if they believe that lower courts have not done correctly. It's not hard to understand. Maybe you watched that episode of Boston Legal where Denny Crane got to try a case before the SCOTUS and you think that it's real and how things get done. Denny Crane.

djtestudo · 05-28-2008, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

so what you're saying is you'd rather not have ANY idea as any kind of descriptor to an individual? That happens all the times, heck it even happens with pitching movies... "It's kind of like Die Hard, but on a ship." "Well, it's like Purple Rain, but with rap music." People are not able to digest long diatribes and making absolute sense out of them. Labels work to some degree.

Let's go back to Civics class. I didn't get one until sophomore year in HS, but it's really as simple as this.

separation of powers the constitutional doctrine of dividing governmental power among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches

checks and balances the constitutional doctrine in which each branch of government shares some of the powers of the other branches in order to limit their actions

As you've posted, they do hear cases, they agree to hear cases based on the merits of if they believe that lower courts have not done correctly. It's not hard to understand. Maybe you watched that episode of Boston Legal where Denny Crane got to try a case before the SCOTUS and you think that it's real and how things get done. Denny Crane.

I saw part of that one, but was mostly distracted by how creepy it was that the actors playing the justices looked so much like the real ones.

I actually had to double-check to make sure they weren't.

05-27-2008, 12:11 PM	#5 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Rehnquist was never a federal judge. He did very well as Chief Justice, even if I didn't agree with quite a few of his decisions. Why was he "good" and not "bad? As CJ, it was his job to move things along efficiently and assign decisions to be written when he was in the majority. Lewis Powell wasn't a judge either. Neither was Thurgood Marshall. Same with Earl Warren. Those are three really powerful names in court history, and they wrote some big decisions. It's not stupid at all. Nor is it a prerequisit, although it looks that way from the current crop of justices. Rumor has it Mario Cuomo turned down a nomination during Bill's term because he wanted out of politics, but he never served as a judge (to the best of my knowledge). Being a federal judge before is neither a help nor a hinderance. If you disagree, I'd love to hear why. As for Hillary herself, I think that it would be a very smart move on her part. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-27-2008, 12:13 PM	#6 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	How could I forget Marshall! __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

05-27-2008, 12:22 PM	#7 (permalink)
Bear Cub The Reverend Side Boob Location: Nofe Curolina	She'd make a terrible judge, pure and simple. Just look at how great a judge she was of her hubby's character. snicker And for christ's sake, what have we come to when we're giving away judicial seats as consolation prizes? __________________ Living in the United Socialist States of America.

05-28-2008, 04:44 AM	#11 (permalink)
Deltona Couple Addict Location: Spring, Texas	I am sure I will get some "polite" rebuttal for this, but personally I don't think Hillary would be a good president. From what I have seen in her political ackground, she tend to be an off-the-cuff type person. She shows signs of letting her emotions make her decisions instead of a greater good. And in all honesty, we don't need a president that leads our country on their emotions. We need someone who can be level headed uder pressure. Now I am not saying that Obama is like that, because until he started showing up as a potential candidate, I really didn't know much about the man, but in my opinion, Hillary just isn't the right person for the job. __________________ "It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

05-28-2008, 03:18 PM	#31 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	You have to love when the striking down of an affirmative action policy is spun into the return of school segregation. I have to wonder how much of Will's dislike for the selection process comes from the court leaning slightly conservative and therefore being disagreeable to him. Especially since George W. Bush has managed to pack the Supreme Court with exactly two justices. That would be the same as Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush. Reagan got three, including the retired Sandra Day O'Conner. There is even John Paul Stevens still hanging-on from the Ford administration. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

05-27-2008, 11:47 AM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	She'll have to be a federal judge first. It's not an official rule, but nominating someone who was just a lawyer and who has no judicial experience is just stupid.

05-27-2008, 11:52 AM	#3 (permalink)
boatin Psycho	Come on, Will. Not doing it because it's stupid isn't sufficient reason not to do it. Have you seen Washington in the last 20+ years? I suspect there's plenty of people who'd disagree with your sentiment, also. It's got some pros and cons, but it's certainly an interesting notion. Points for creativity, also!

05-27-2008, 01:25 PM	#9 (permalink)
teresita Upright	I still say the best thing for this country is Hillary President, Obama as Vice. Open your eyes, she can get things done, he can guide us with his vision, they can both learn from each other, and together I think anything that is positive change is possible. And in 8 years, he can still be president. It does not get better than this, and it probably never will.

05-28-2008, 09:33 AM	#13 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The bottom line: She'd be just another partisan and corrupt justice. That's the absolute last thing we need. We've got as many partisan and corrupt hacks on the Supreme Court as were running for president last year. Scalia went duck hunting with Chenet at the same time Cheney was a named defendant in a case before the Supreme Court. Alito presided over a case involving a company in which he'd invested hundreds of thousands of dollars. Alito sees terrorism cases despite being best friends with Michael Chertoff (head of DHS). The best part? They vote down party lines on nearly every decision. Of the 24 5/4 decisions in the 2006-2007 term, 19 broke across ideological lines. They invented law to steal an election. We should be fixing the Supreme Court, not making it worse. The day Hillary becomes a Supreme Court justice is the day I devote my life to making sure that Justices will be elected by the people as it's clear the system is completely broken.

05-28-2008, 10:12 AM	#15 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	It's not about having even partisanship. That's putting a band-aid on the hemorrhage. Actually, it's more like having a hemorrhage in each arm and widening the wound on the left so that you bleed out evenly. What we need are impartial justices. Really, honestly, and truly impartial justices. I know a few judges in my area who would probably do a damn good job keeping politics out of the Supreme Court, but the real issue is with confirmation. Alito's nomination to replace Sandra Day O'Connor made me want to vomit. Why, on god's green earth, do we allow a president, king of partisanship, to choose a judge to sit on the highest court in the land? It's (pardon my french) fucking stupid.

05-28-2008, 03:37 PM	#32 (permalink)
Shauk Confused Adult Location: Spokane, WA	No, hell no, The whole reason I don't want to vote for her to begin with is because she's too conservative and censorship happy. She doesn't believe in freedom. She wants to shelter everyone from reality, she thinks media should be controlled, freedom of expression? pfft, no, no room for that. If shes in the business of putting criminals away, then fine, but if she wants to preside over courts that determine the bigger fates as to what defines right and wrong? no thanks.

05-28-2008, 06:57 PM	#38 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	People vote for elected officials based on what they say they will and won't do. Likewise, the Senate votes on a SCOTUS nominee based on what he or she says when questioned. If the person in question lies, they misrepresent the manner in which they will serve. Ginsberg should have answered the questions, but likewise there shouldn't have been such political bullshit going on in the Senate. I love Ginsberg. I agree with a lot of her politics, but I worry that she brings her politics to the bench. This is why I take issue with political parties. Labeling something you are evokes allegiance. It makes one less likely to disagree with those who use the same label. That's dangerous.