Politics

[IrishJayhawk]

I have struggled with this concept...the lifetime appointment of justices allows for significant issues to be perpetuated for periods beyond what the chief executive can visit upon the country...longer than any legislator would likely be able to.

SO...I was never all that uncomfortable, and understood the benefit of the lifetime appointment until more recently. Now, I'm concerned with clear and obvious political operatives on the bench creating tings out of thin air...

We need to end the lifetime appointment w/o periodic review. If no one can come up with a review system which maintains the balance of power, I can certainly handle a single 12 year term on the bench, but I can no longer support lifetime appointments, because people on the supreme court no longer restrain themselves from CREATING law. As such, with the toothpaste now out of the tube, I cannot see my way clear to believing this won't turn into a tit for tat on political motivations.

It is time to transition the SCOTUS so term limits serve to constrain any one justice's time weighted influence, thus restraining them all. I would start by booting the longest serving, and then one every 6 years based on the length of their term(longest to shortest) until we've cycled through the existing, and any new appointments would have a 12 year stint...then GTFO.

To be clear, the original comment was related to the Kansas Supreme Court and Legislature. Those judges do face reappointment elections already.

 

[phgreek]

To be clear, the original comment was related to the Kansas Supreme Court and Legislature. Those judges do face reappointment elections already.

my bad...I didn't know there was a Kansas Supreme Court justice named Scalia...

I assumed the post I responded to encompassed the SCOTUS.

 

[GoIrish41]

...is this the segway to more taxes or single payer....just want to be clear what I'm railing against

Maybe just an acknowledgement about how much it was needed in a sea of "repeal Obamacare" sentiment. But if it moves you guys to single payer, I won't get in the way.

 

[phgreek]

Maybe just an acknowledgement about how much it was needed in a sea of "repeal Obamacare" sentiment. But if it moves you guys to single payer, I won't get in the way.

....won't get in the way...like throw banana peels on the ground at my feet in front of the single payer ramp?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

my bad...I didn't know there was a Kansas Supreme Court justice named Scalia...

I assumed the post I responded to encompassed the SCOTUS.

It had shifted somewhat. I was just telling you that the original post about checks and balances was about the Kansas legislature trying to pass a law limiting the Kansas supreme court.

 

[phgreek]

It had shifted somewhat. I was just telling you that the original post about checks and balances was about the Kansas legislature trying to pass a law limiting the Kansas supreme court.

I'm with you, and when I thought it was in the context of Kansas Supreme Court, I commented that I thought the legislature seemed to have a red ass, and the judicial already had term limits etc.

 

[NDgradstudent]

This is scary stuff.

Kansas Supreme Court impeachment bill advances in state Senate | The Wichita Eagle

In other words, if they don't interpret our law in the way we think they should, we can get rid of them in favor of someone who will.

Kansas selects its judges through the "Missouri Plan," which empowers hard-lefty bar association lawyers. These systems use a "judicial nominating commission," typically made up of bar association members, to produce a short list of judges that the governor must choose from. In Kansas, the commission has nine members, five of whom are chosen by the state's bar association, and four of whom are chosen by the governor.

This process radically slants Kansas' judiciary, producing a court that is further to the left than the U.S. Supreme Court. Indeed, when the Kansas Supreme Court vacated the death sentences of two psychopathic murderers the Supreme Court reversed the decision by an 8-1 vote. So the U.S. Supreme Court is well to the right of the Kansas Supreme Court, despite the fact that Kansas is well to the right of the U.S. as a whole.

The federal model or a modified federal model would be much better -judges are chosen by the governor and/or legislators, who are elected by the people- but of course that means that hard-lefties will no longer control the process. People don't give up power easily...

 

[Legacy]

Kansas selects its judges through the "Missouri Plan," which empowers hard-lefty bar association lawyers. These systems use a "judicial nominating commission," typically made up of bar association members, to produce a short list of judges that the governor must choose from. In Kansas, the commission has nine members, five of whom are chosen by the state's bar association, and four of whom are chosen by the governor.

This process radically slants Kansas' judiciary, producing a court that is further to the left than the U.S. Supreme Court. Indeed, when the Kansas Supreme Court vacated the death sentences of two psychopathic murderers the Supreme Court reversed the decision by an 8-1 vote. So the U.S. Supreme Court is well to the right of the Kansas Supreme Court, despite the fact that Kansas is well to the right of the U.S. as a whole.

The federal model or a modified federal model would be much better -judges are chosen by the governor and/or legislators, who are elected by the people- but of course that means that hard-lefties will no longer control the process. People don't give up power easily...

This sounds politically-motivated with all due respect. The selection of justices in Massachusetts-style judicial model has the governor making the SC appointments with approval from the Judicial Council. Slanted? That's how the Kansas appeals court nominees are determined - by the governor - with the additional step of confirmation by majority vote of their Senate.

The Judicial Nominating Committee for the Supreme Court in Kansas does have four non-lawyers appointed by the governor (Brownback currently), four attorneys selected by attorneys in each of the state's four congressional districts and the committee chair elected in a state-wide vote of attorneys. It does not seem reasonable that one of the five members not selected by the governor in a state that is "to the right of the U.S. as a whole" would not side with the governor's appointees.

I don't see "hard lefties" or "radically slants". From my point of view, the additional step proposed of impeaching justices by the legislature in any state threatens judicial independence on controversial issues and opens the door to special interests' and partisans' influences over judicial decisions.

Here's the details of the impeachment bill proposed by the Kansas Senate:
KANSAS: PLAN TO IMPEACH STATE SUPREME COURT FOR “USURPING” LEGISLATURE PASSES SENATE 21-19; “HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS” NOW TO INCLUDE POLITICAL OFFENSES

The Senate would expand the impeachment criteria of "high crimes and misdemeanors", which currently is considered to be criminal offenses, to include non-criminal "offenses" such as:
- attempting to subvert fundamental laws and introduce arbitrary power;
- attempting to usurp the power of the legislative or executive branch of government;
- exhibiting discourteous conduct toward litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers or others with whom the justice deals in an official capacity;
(see link for others)

One proponent of the bill said about expanding the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors":

“These are not necessarily criminal acts, nor do they have to be.”

A couple of articles on issues related to electing judges:
Justice for Sale
How elected judges became a threat to American democracy.

Yes, Texas elects its judges. But should it? (Daily Texan)

JUDICIAL SELECTION IN TEXAS:
NOTHING’S PERFECT (League of Women Voters, Texas)

 

[NDgradstudent]

This sounds politically-motivated with all due respect. The selection of justices in Massachusetts-style judicial model has the governor making the SC appointments with approval from the Judicial Council. Slanted? That's how the Kansas appeals court nominees are determined - by the governor - with the additional step of confirmation by majority vote of their Senate.

It's my opinion about a political issue, so it is politically motivated. I think judges make 'political' decisions, and so they should be chosen by elected officials or elected themselves. It is true that the governor of Kansas picks a nominee, but only from a group of three nominees who are given to him by the nominating commission. Therefore he typically has to choose among three nominees well to the left of a nominee he would have chosen if he could pick anyone.

As for Massachusetts, I don't believe that the state's bar association wields the sort of outsized influence on the nominating commission that it does in Kansas and other "Missouri Plan" states. I dislike judicial nominating commissions, but those that give state bar associations power are the most absurd of all.

Kansas needs to fix this problem by moving to the federal model. Of course Democrats, bar association hacks, and journalists in Kansas dislike any reform, because it means that a tool advancing left-wing policy -the Kansas Supreme Court- will probably stop advancing left-wing policy because judges will no longer be left-wing. But once it is fixed, it will not be changed back unless Democrats win control of the Kansas Legislature, which is unlikely. Politics is about who holds power, and in Kansas that should be Republicans.

 

[EddytoNow]

It's my opinion about a political issue, so it is politically motivated. I think judges make 'political' decisions, and so they should be chosen by elected officials or elected themselves. It is true that the governor of Kansas picks a nominee, but only from a group of three nominees who are given to him by the nominating commission. Therefore he typically has to choose among three nominees well to the left of a nominee he would have chosen if he could pick anyone.

As for Massachusetts, I don't believe that the state's bar association wields the sort of outsized influence on the nominating commission that it does in Kansas and other "Missouri Plan" states. I dislike judicial nominating commissions, but those that give state bar associations power are the most absurd of all.

Kansas needs to fix this problem by moving to the federal model. Of course Democrats, bar association hacks, and journalists in Kansas dislike any reform, because it means that a tool advancing left-wing policy -the Kansas Supreme Court- will probably stop advancing left-wing policy because judges will no longer be left-wing. But once it is fixed, it will not be changed back unless Democrats win control of the Kansas Legislature, which is unlikely. Politics is about who holds power, and in Kansas that should be Republicans.

The problem is that the Supreme Court should be above and out of the reach of politics. If we start electing our Supreme Court justices or reappoint them every 4 years or so, the Supreme Court will end up being more political than it is already. IMHO the best Supreme Court justices are the ones recognized widely as the swing votes. They don't just follow the political will of one party or the other, they actually make decisions based upon the merits of the case. If the other justices did the same, we would have fewer 5-4 decisions and more 9-0 decisions.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Um...

Rupert Murdoch's Ex-Wife Wendi Deng Is Dating Vladimir Putin | GQ

 

[NDgradstudent]

The problem is that the Supreme Court should be above and out of the reach of politics. If we start electing our Supreme Court justices or reappoint them every 4 years or so, the Supreme Court will end up being more political than it is already. IMHO the best Supreme Court justices are the ones recognized widely as the swing votes. They don't just follow the political will of one party or the other, they actually make decisions based upon the merits of the case. If the other justices did the same, we would have fewer 5-4 decisions and more 9-0 decisions.

How can the Supreme Court be more political than it is already? When the Court chooses to behave like a legislature -which it does regularly- its members can hardly be surprised when everyone else treats it as a legislature, giving the same scrutiny to its potential members as we give to other candidates for office.

In many instances before the Supreme Court, there is no such thing as making a decision "based upon the merits of the case." If there were consensus from the lower courts the case would probably not be at the Supreme Court. How a judge decides a case depends upon her theory of constitutional and statutory interpretation. Democrats prefer judges who construe legal texts broadly/in their interests, Republicans prefer judges who construe legal texts based upon what they originally meant/in their interests. Different parties select judges who think certain ways and therefore vote certain ways. 'Politics' is an unavoidable part of the process.

A better solution would be changing the voting rules on the Court, or abolishing its power of constitutional review.

 

[GoIrish41]

Drugs You Don't Need For Disorders You Don't Have - The Huffington Post

 

[Buster Bluth]

The Rise of Partisanship in the U.S. House of Representatives

 

[NDVirginia19]

FWIW Former Texas Democratic Governor nominee Wendy Davis is coming to campus to speak tonight, being praised for her stance on Abortion

 

[connor_in]

Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit

Housing officials are urging the Justice Department to provide assurances to banks, which have become increasingly cautious, that they will not face legal or financial recriminations if they make loans to riskier borrowers who meet government standards but later default.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

FWIW Former Texas Democratic Governor nominee Wendy Davis is coming to campus to speak tonight, being praised for her stance on Abortion

She was invited to ND?

 

[Rack Em]

FWIW Former Texas Democratic Governor nominee Wendy Davis is coming to campus to speak tonight, being praised for her stance on Abortion

Being praised by whom? The ghost of Fr. Dick O'Brien?

 

[NDVirginia19]

She's being sponsored by a couple clubs as well as the Department of Gender Studies. But Milo Yiannapolous and Christina Hoff Summers are both coming Wednesday night too, so it balances out I suppose.

 

[NorthDakota]

FWIW Former Texas Democratic Governor nominee Wendy Davis is coming to campus to speak tonight, being praised for her stance on Abortion

A wikipedia search leads me to believe she shouldn't be praised for that. Notre Dame....shame on you.

 

[Rack Em]

She's being sponsored by a couple clubs as well as the Department of Gender Studies. But Milo Yiannapolous and Christina Hoff Summers are both coming Wednesday night too, so it balances out I suppose.

Classic. Like Fr. Ted said, Catholic education is inherently a "crossroad." But I don't understand why it continues to pick up scary hitchhikers with knives and drug habits at the intersection.

 

[NDVirginia19]

There's also been a lot of disagreement on campus with the decision to give Joe Biden the Laetare Medal, especially given his stance on Abortion. I really don't give enough of a damn to sign a petition or right a letter to the editor because awards like that are pretty meaningless, but I'm pretty shocked the University decided to award him.

 

[woolybug25]

You guys are hilarious. What Lightening conveniently left out was that the College Democrats are the ones that spearheaded it. Are they not allowed to have events or speakers? I also haven't seen anything regarding "praising her for her stance on abortion" by any Notre Dame faculty member. Are we supposed to waive our fingers and boo any time a club brings a Democrat onto the campus? It's a college campus for crying out loud.

Any chance some of you get to huff and puff about abortion you take. You rarely even look at the scenario or circumstance. Just judge first and ask questions... well... never....

 

[NDVirginia19]

I'm just mainly surprised that ND is letting a Department sponsor an event that says in its description "Wendy Davis, a modern-day Texas heroine, appeared on the national scene as a State Senator during her 2013 filibuster that temporarily blocked devastating legislation seeking to limit women’s access to abortions"

 

[IrishJayhawk]

You guys are hilarious. What Lightening conveniently left out was that the College Democrats are the ones that spearheaded it. Are they not allowed to have events or speakers? I also haven't seen anything regarding "praising her for her stance on abortion" by any Notre Dame faculty member. Are we supposed to waive our fingers and boo any time a club brings a Democrat onto the campus? It's a college campus for crying out loud.

Any chance some of you get to huff and puff about abortion you take. You rarely even look at the scenario or circumstance. Just judge first and ask questions... well... never....

[insert snarky comment about safe spaces]

 

[woolybug25]

I'm just mainly surprised that ND is letting a Department sponsor an event that says in its description "Wendy Davis, a modern-day Texas heroine, appeared on the national scene as a State Senator during her 2013 filibuster that temporarily blocked devastating legislation seeking to limit women’s access to abortions"

Where are the links for this stuff? You are making a lot of claims with no references.

Furthermore, are you saying that the College Democrats should only be able to have people come in that fit your agenda? They can't have pro-choice speakers?

 

[Ndaccountant]

You guys are hilarious. What Lightening conveniently left out was that the College Democrats are the ones that spearheaded it. Are they not allowed to have events or speakers? I also haven't seen anything regarding "praising her for her stance on abortion" by any Notre Dame faculty member. Are we supposed to waive our fingers and boo any time a club brings a Democrat onto the campus? It's a college campus for crying out loud.

Any chance some of you get to huff and puff about abortion you take. You rarely even look at the scenario or circumstance. Just judge first and ask questions... well... never....

The irony is this has to be one of the few major places of higher learning that would provoke such a response from a left leaning individual.

 

[NorthDakota]

You guys are hilarious. What Lightening conveniently left out was that the College Democrats are the ones that spearheaded it. Are they not allowed to have events or speakers? I also haven't seen anything regarding "praising her for her stance on abortion" by any Notre Dame faculty member. Are we supposed to waive our fingers and boo any time a club brings a Democrat onto the campus? It's a college campus for crying out loud.

Any chance some of you get to huff and puff about abortion you take. You rarely even look at the scenario or circumstance. Just judge first and ask questions... well... never....

1.) I think you raise a good point about booing a club bringing democrats onto campus. I am as far as it gets from being a democrat, but they have a voice too.

2.) Abortion - Yeah, I can see why people who support a Catholic university are disappointed or concerned with bringing people who support the choice to end an innocent life.

3.) Hmu when you need to hire a young millenial with a Finance degree.

 

[woolybug25]

The irony is this has to be one of the few major places of higher learning that would provoke such a response from a left leaning individual.

Can you rephrase that, as I have no idea what you are trying to say.

 

[NDVirginia19]

https://www.facebook.com/events/996645333748543/

Again, I'm not saying she shouldn't be allowed to speak on campus, I'm just surprised that a Notre Dame department is being allowed by the university to sponsor the event.