View Poll Results: What do you think?

Voters
4. You may not vote on this poll
  • I agree

    2 50.00%
  • I disagree

    1 25.00%
  • I don't know

    1 25.00%
  • Other (please explain in a comment)

    0 0%
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: What do you think of this idea?

  1. #1

    Question What do you think of this idea?

    The retirement of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is once again driving home a ludicrous political reality in America: Five unelected “justices,” often with dubious qualifications and/or ethics, have the power to transform their personal biases into rulings that affect millions of people for decades, and possibly centuries.
    If America truly has a government of “checks and balances,” then the Supreme Court must be subject to this doctrine as well. Since this cannot be accomplished through the ballot box, I propose the following: Supreme Court decisions should be submitted and reviewed by all federal judges in both the district and appellate courts, who would then have the power to overrule them. A 5-4 decision would be overturned if 51 percent of federal judges voted against it; a 6-3 decision would require a minimum of 61 percent to overturn; a 7-2 decision, a minimum of 71 percent; an 8-1 decision, a minimum of 81 percent; and a 9-0 decision, a minimum of 91 percent.” This will not only reduce the increasing politicization of the Supreme Court, it will also reduce the machinations the legislative and executive branches use to create this politicization.

    — David R. Hoffman, Mishawaka, Ind.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...06-story.html#
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    It might work. It also would bring a sharper focus on each
    possible replacement for each position, given that they can
    basically 'critique' their social betters as a group. Just today I
    saw a timely article on how some Democrats want to impeach
    Clarence Thomas due to a new sexual harassment complaint.
    It may possibly make Supreme Court packing more difficult.

  4. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The retirement of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is once again driving home a ludicrous political reality in America: Five unelected “justices,” often with dubious qualifications and/or ethics, have the power to transform their personal biases into rulings that affect millions of people for decades, and possibly centuries.
    If America truly has a government of “checks and balances,” then the Supreme Court must be subject to this doctrine as well. Since this cannot be accomplished through the ballot box, I propose the following: Supreme Court decisions should be submitted and reviewed by all federal judges in both the district and appellate courts, who would then have the power to overrule them. A 5-4 decision would be overturned if 51 percent of federal judges voted against it; a 6-3 decision would require a minimum of 61 percent to overturn; a 7-2 decision, a minimum of 71 percent; an 8-1 decision, a minimum of 81 percent; and a 9-0 decision, a minimum of 91 percent.” This will not only reduce the increasing politicization of the Supreme Court, it will also reduce the machinations the legislative and executive branches use to create this politicization.

    — David R. Hoffman, Mishawaka, Ind.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...06-story.html#


    I dunno, subjecting Supremes to such scrutiny doctrine seems bit irreverent as a concept.

    Although chatter like this is being published by media today.

    “Just to state this: Justice Kennedy’s son gave a billion dollar loan to Trump when no one would give him a dime, and Justice Kennedy has been ruling in favor of the Trump Administration position for 2 years as the Court decides 5-4 case after 5-4 case.”
    — Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress, in a tweet, June 29, 2018
    From: Media's thinly sourced theories about Trump and Justice Kennedy’s son



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 121
    Last Post: 12-31-2009, 09:10 AM
  2. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 11-29-2008, 04:23 PM
  3. Bad Idea or Good Idea - Swiss Bank Account
    By Dedzone in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-28-2008, 07:06 AM
  4. Youtube Questions Project Phase 1 - good idea, bad idea?
    By chinaCat in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-30-2007, 03:18 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •