Looks like the reliligous right is taking that final step to marginalize not only congress but now the supreme court.

Rock breaks scissors, paper covers rock, scissors cuts paper and god trumps all.

This is some scary stuff.

http://www.renewamerica.us/news/040225baldwin.htm

yes, the religious right who cant keep a stone statue in a building is about to take over the country. sure dop

Anyone who says they haven't overstepped their bounds isn't looking.

Rush Limbaugh made a point last week that shows how we have accepted this. Senator Kennedy constantly talks about "an independent judiciary." Fine, right? But if anyone used the phrase "independant executive branch" or "independent congress" we'd scream about the balance of power.

THE ONLY WAY TO SOLVE IT IS TO END LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS. we get these lawyers who don black robes up there like some kind of royalty preaching down to us from on high. They should have to face the voters like everyone else.

I'm with ya on that one Trav ... make them work for their supper.

I do not believe this bill stands a snowball's chance in hell.
I agree that the Supreme Court judges should be elected.
I believe all elected officials should have term limits.

Originally posted by Travh20
THE ONLY WAY TO SOLVE IT IS TO END LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS.

Hell no. Then they end up making all sorts of crazy decisions so that they can get re-elected.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
I do not believe this bill stands a snowball's chance in hell.
I agree that the Supreme Court judges should be elected.
I believe all elected officials should have term limits.

I can hardly convey what an awful idea this is without being insulting.

Texas has elected judges. It's terrible. Judges aren't there because they are good judges, they're often there because they know the right people or are good salesmen. Those are not the people who should be interpreting the law.

There should be a constitutional amendment against allowing judges to be elected to their positions.

Originally posted by Leper
There should be a constitutional amendment against allowing judges to be elected to their positions.

That's the point leper ... once the religious right takes over the courts ... there will be no more constitution.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Hell no. Then they end up making all sorts of crazy decisions so that they can get re-elected.

or they make all kinds of crazy decisions because they untouchable, pick your poison. At least if they were conforming to the constiuents they would be making crazy decisions based on what the people wanted, not on what they wanted. what we have now is one single man or woman dictating their beliefs to the masses under the guise of interpreting the constitution. It is already agreed upon that judges do have views, and agendas, otherwise certain judges wouldnt be so opposed by certain groups and every nominee woudl just breeze through after a simple review of their qualifications

Hell no. Then they end up making all sorts of crazy decisions so that they can get re-elected. Yup.

Another huge problem with this bill is the amphasis on "increasing federalism" The Government has become far bigger and much more powerful than in its inception. The founding fathers wanted a limited/minimal federal system because they knew that it could easily lead to tyranny. If this was a "restoration" bill it would shift the focus back towards states rights.

Originally posted by Travh20
or they make all kinds of crazy decisions because they untouchable, pick your poison. At least if they were conforming to the constiuents they would be making crazy decisions based on what the people wanted, not on what they wanted. what we have now is one single man or woman dictating their beliefs to the masses under the guise of interpreting the constitution. It is already agreed upon that judges do have views, and agendas, otherwise certain judges wouldnt be so opposed by certain groups and every nominee woudl just breeze through after a simple review of their qualifications

I'd much rather judges made decisions based on what they thought was right rather than they thought would get them reelected. Let's face it: the public doesn't know shit about individual cases, so judges are in a much better position to make a just decision. You ask for the injection of injustice into the court system, Trav.

Originally posted by Travh20
THE ONLY WAY TO SOLVE IT IS TO END LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS. we get these lawyers who don black robes up there like some kind of royalty preaching down to us from on high. They should have to face the voters like everyone else.

agreed.

Do you really think that Supreme Court Judges are appointed now because of their unbiased opinions?
If you do you are not realizing human nature.
Do you think Bush would nominate a judge that thinks the complete opposite of he and his party?

I dont think that at all. I know that is the reality of the situation. that is why I disagree with some on this board who are pro gay marriage that the judges who have ruled in favor of gay marriage are just doing their jobs, and by coincidencethey happen to live in the two most liberal states in america. Perhaps if some conservative judge in Idaho ruled that way it may be the case. the funny thing is, the same people who say judge in MASS and CA simply interpret the constitution are the same ones who would say a conservative judge ruling against it is to biased and a bigot.

Originally posted by Travh20
or they make all kinds of crazy decisions because they untouchable, pick your poison. At least if they were conforming to the constiuents they would be making crazy decisions based on what the people wanted, not on what they wanted.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any decisions by federal judges that weren't completely out of whack with the constitution or Supreme Court precedents.

Originally posted by Travh20

I disagree with some on this board who are pro gay marriage that the judges who have ruled in favor of gay marriage are just doing their jobs, and by coincidencethey happen to live in the two most liberal states in america.


I'm pretty sure the judge in California is elected, but I'm not positive.

I think both systems have their good points and bad points, but I see no reason to change what we have now. I prefer that judges decide the case on its merits, not because they might fear a backlash from the voters, or because they owe someone a political favor.

The last thing we need is the supreme court judges elected. Having the president appoint them is part of how the system works - its one of the checks & balances.

If they were elected then we'd be simply have politicians instead of intellectuals in those roles. Disaster scenario.

Plus - what platform would they run on? They are there to uphold the constitution - not to be funded by political parties or to be running for office with promises that pander to specific groups.

I have a lot of respect for the judicial branch.

Originally posted by Travh20
I dont think that at all. I know that is the reality of the situation. that is why I disagree with some on this board who are pro gay marriage that the judges who have ruled in favor of gay marriage are just doing their jobs, and by coincidencethey happen to live in the two most liberal states in america.

Actually, it is usually the conservatives who claim that any judge who strikes down a law banning gay marriage is an "activist" and is not doing his/her job.

BTW, states aren't liberal, people are liberal.

Perhaps if some conservative judge in Idaho ruled that way it may be the case. the funny thing is, the same people who say judge in MASS and CA simply interpret the constitution are the same ones who would say a conservative judge ruling against it is to biased and a bigot.

Perhaps that's because I have yet to hear a convincing argument on why I shouldn't have the same rights, and enjoy the same priviledges as you do. All the arguments come down to religion, or simply "It's just wrong"...so, if a judge does rule against allowing gays to marry, I definitely have a strong suspicion that they're ruling based on their personal feelings, and not the law.

Originally posted by Travh20
yes, the religious right who cant keep a stone statue in a building is about to take over the country. sure dop

Or, to phrase it more correctly;

The Religious Right may have failed to keep the Ten Commandments installed in ONE courtroom among the thousands upon thousands of courtrooms in this land, but they still pretty much dictate ---thru the myriad laws that they have succeeded in browbeating the legislative branch to enact, laws that conform to THEIR narrow definition of what is "right 'n wrong"-----to the rest of us how we shall conduct ourselves in the "moral" sense.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing


This is some scary stuff.

http://www.renewamerica.us/news/040225baldwin.htm

Yes, it is.

Here's what the religious wingnut Baldwin says about the Bill;

"I was privileged to be in attendance at the press conference in Prattville, Alabama when former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, Rep. Aderholt, Sen. Shelby, Sen. Brownback, and Ambassador Alan Keyes formally announced the introduction of this bill to the media. Also in attendance were conservative luminaries such as Phyllis Schlafly and Howard Phillips. The bill was drafted by a star-studded legal team including Chief Justice Moore's lead counsel, Herb Titus.

The passage of H.R. 3799 and S. 2082 should be regarded as the most important item on the conservative agenda this year! It is no hyperbole to say that the passage of this bill is significantly more important than who wins the White House this November.
You see, what difference does it make who wins a presidential or congressional election if neither party will faithfully discharge their duty to the U.S. Constitution?""

I wonder where the religionists saw it in the U.S. Constitution---"Thou shalt not allow two citizens who love each other to obtain a marriage license if they are the same sex"


More from Mr Baldwin---

""We have seen Republican and Democratic presidents come and go. The same goes for congressmen and senators. Yet, government continues to get bigger and bigger, while freedom gets smaller and smaller.....One of the major reasons for this unfortunate set of circumstances is an out-of-control federal judiciary. For the last fifty years, federal courts have run roughshod over the Constitution. For all practical purposes, America is now controlled by a tyrannical oligarchy of federal judges. ""

Baldwin may be correct there....of course, he ignores that fact that the vast majority of that **tyrannical oligarchy of federal judges** in this country are decidely conservative leaning.

Baldwin and his ilk prefer instead to focus on a small handful of wedge issues --like abortion or gay rights--- on which the REAL tyrannical oligarchy in this country; the Religious Right----- has had to face a bit of opposition from judges with fair and open minds.

Then of course, the proposed Bill H.R. 3799 would be of great help to the Religious faction on various OTHER (virtually meaningless, yet extremely useful politically) societal issues that they are deeply concerned about and --as with everything else-- insistent about having THEIR way on; like the Ten Commandments being displayed in public buildings, Nativity Scenes being allowed on court house lawns, "under God" being recited in the Pledge of Allegiance and other religious folderol.



.

Unfortunately we're already to the point where both sides care more about how federal judges will decide tiny fraction of cases regarding right to life issues that may come before them rather than whether or not they're qualified to deal with the other 99.94% of cases regarding contract law, the Uniform Commercial Code, copyrights, patents, admiralty law, criminal law, etc.

The biggest problem I see with electing judges is that they will then have to raise campaign funds. These will come from contributions, just like all other political offices. In order to keep the contributions coming in, they will be compelled to decide cases the way their contributors want. Those who make campaign contributions are not representative of the entire country, they are skewed way toward the wealthiest Americans. This would make sure that all three branches of government are controlled by the wealthy.

Originally posted by Travh20
THE ONLY WAY TO SOLVE IT IS TO END LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS. we get these lawyers who don black robes up there like some kind of royalty preaching down to us from on high. They should have to face the voters like everyone else.
Ya' still can't get-over "conservative"-judges, who've been appointed by "conservative"-Presidents.....who turn-out to be "liberal"-judges (i.e. Constitutionalists), huh???

Yeah.......whatta shame that we can't keep tweaking our Courts, until we get judges as ignorant as most Americans (about applying the Constitution)!!!! :@@:

Originally posted by Imagineer
The biggest problem I see with electing judges is that they will then have to raise campaign funds. These will come from contributions, just like all other political offices. In order to keep the contributions coming in, they will be compelled to decide cases the way their contributors want. Those who make campaign contributions are not representative of the entire country, they are skewed way toward the wealthiest Americans. This would make sure that all three branches of government are controlled by the wealthy.
Absolutely!! When are judges going to realize we a capitalistic-society......and, people should be able to BUY the appropriate-justice (they think is necessary)?????

Hell.......that's worked pretty-well, SO far!!!!!! (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=896&scid=68) :rolleyes:

that is why I disagree with some on this board who are pro gay marriage that the judges who have ruled in favor of gay marriage are just doing their jobs, and by coincidencethey happen to live in the two most liberal states in america. Thats because you think gays should be second class citizens.

Ive repeatedly told you that it is the 1100 civil liberties that come with marriage that gays want not the word. You would have loved if Terri was gay then her partner would have any say. silly bigot.