NationStates Jolt Archive

Should we let our president appoint supreme court judges or the people elect them? For their lifetime 'appointment'. Or should it be a lifetime elected? Or other? Looking for opinions on this.

I remember hearing of a judge elected for a regional court, or state court, or whatever in one of the Southern States being the local dog catcher.

But hell, partisan politics play a role in the appointments for judges.

I think they should be appointed, not many of us no that much about law.

sadly the judges in alabama are elected and we get dipshits like roy moore who shouldnt be allowed near case law

Appointed, judicial elections can be ****ed up like real elections.

I like the Canadian system - appointed.

It's more important the more powerful the court they'd be serving on. I took part in electing local judges when I lived in Louisiana, but I wouldn't want to have elections for the state Supreme Court or the Federal bench.

I like the system in place now on the Federal level--the President nominates and the Senate advises and consents. That generally serves to keep the real whackjobs out of the higher courts, although occasionally you still get a Scalia.

It's more important the more powerful the court they'd be serving on. I took part in electing local judges when I lived in Louisiana, but I wouldn't want to have elections for the state Supreme Court or the Federal bench.

I like the system in place now on the Federal level--the President nominates and the Senate advises and consents. That generally serves to keep the real whackjobs out of the higher courts, although occasionally you still get a Scalia.
thomas makes scalia look like a communist

Nah, Scalia is the more influential of the two. Thomas rarely makes his views known and certainly doesn't try to drive the discussion the way Scalia does. Scalia also authors way more opinions than Thomas does. Now in their private moments, Thomas may be more extreme than Scalia, but on the bench, Scalia has far more pull and influence and drags the Court much farther to the right than Thomas.

Nah, Scalia is the more influential of the two. Thomas rarely makes his views known and certainly doesn't try to drive the discussion the way Scalia does. Scalia also authors way more opinions than Thomas does. Now in their private moments, Thomas may be more extreme than Scalia, but on the bench, Scalia has far more pull and influence and drags the Court much farther to the right than Thomas.
um, no. thomas is far worse than scalia. read up on the msot recent cases. scalia has wavered a bit but thomas is dead on HARDCORE right wing. (thomas has stated he believes the state government has the right to create a religion, even the msot extreme christian republicans dont go that far)

NO!

You see the types of people that get elected, and how they're elected. You really want people to rule 1/3 of the U.S. government (Legislature, Executive, Judicial) because they are really rich?
No, I cannot trust my fellow Americans enough for that. Let their past records and education speak for themselves.

um, no. thomas is far worse than scalia. read up on the msot recent cases. scalia has wavered a bit but thomas is dead on HARDCORE right wing. (thomas has stated he believes the state government has the right to create a religion, even the msot extreme christian republicans dont go that far)
I'm not arguing that Thomas isn't personally farther to the right than Scalia, just that he's less influential on the Court as a whole. You want the perfect example of just how powerful Scalia is? O'Connor may have cast the deciding vote in Bush v Gore, but that was a Scalia decision and argument all the way. Thomas may well be the most conservative member, but he has little influence.