RSS
Every time there is a hoop-tee-do over a Supreme Court nominee, I trot out my old structural reform suggestion for lowering the stakes.
The way to reform the Supreme Court nomination process is to increase the number of justices from 9 to 11 in the long run, and each new justice gets a single, non-renewable 22-year-term.
Win a presidential election and you get to nominate two justices. That’s fair. And you don’t have to pick extra young ones or Colorado joggers or whatever, just somebody in his or her prime who looks likely to last 22 years. The typical nominee would likely be in his or her early 50s and retire around 75. This would reduce spectacles like Justice Ginsburg trying to outrun the Reaper.
During the transition era, current justices would continue to serve their lifetime terms. This means that the Supreme Court would initially have fewer than 11 justices and then might for awhile have more than 11 while the current justices haven’t died or retired, but eventually things would shake out to 11. (During 2016 and early 2017 the Supreme Court only had 8 justices, and it wasn’t the end of the world.)
To deal with the issue of potential corruption stemming from not having lifetime terms, justices would get $1 million per year lifetime pensions, with strict rules against other sources of post-retirement income.
If a justice died or retired before the end of a 22-year term, the current president would nominate somebody to complete the 22-year term, but the replacement justice would not be eligible for renomination.
This should not take a constitutional amendment, since the number and term of Supreme Court justices is not specified in the Constitution.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
My preference, given the cultural issues, is to have an even number of justices. Ties go back to the appellate court and different laws hold in different regions. I like the term limits too.
Sound idea but the left believe that time/demographics are on their side and that they will eventually control all 9 seats, forever.
I bring up Brazil because that is the closest thing to the demographic future of the United States. When I look at the pictures of the justices, they hardly look more diverse than the SCOTUS. They all appear to be very light-skinned Hispanics. What I have not figured out is how many of them are far leftists.
The Algerians are a very proud people who will not allow a US base in their territory.
The Tunisians don't have a lot of gas and need cash.
This is also why there is an enormous drone base under construction over the border in Niger.
Or do our special forces just need a small country to practice warfare on like Panama and Grenada?
An alternate approach: keep everything as is, but set a minimum age of 65 or 70 for new justices.
“This should not take a constitutional amendment, since the number and term of Supreme Court justices is not specified in the Constitution.”
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior,
In the common law tradition, “during good behavior” excludes a fixed term.
The number is currently specified by statute though, which means needing 60 Senators under current rules. “During good behavior” is interpreted to mean a life term.
Another option could be to make the Supreme Court even larger than 11 justices, and organize it more like the Circuit Courts, almost like another Circuit Court on top of each Circuit, with divisions, cases heard by panels of judges, and only a limited number of cases being heard en banc (by the whole court). That would certainly help it manage its caseload.
Either way, frankly, I think Democrats are so locked into the intellectual frame of the various sexual “rights” being holy writ that they’re unable to think much outside the box with the Supreme Court, and see it merely in terms of being a super-legislature of nine holding on to their precious rights to homosexual sodomy and female sexual licentiousness. And as unhappy and promiscuous women go, so go the Democrats (hopefully that’s the closest I’ll ever sound to Whiskey).
On a related topic, the Ninth Circuit seriously need to be broken up, at least into two. I’d do Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and Montana in one, and California, Arizona, Nevada and Hawaii into the other. Or just give California its own circuit.
OT: Cody Wilson, who actually does something to keep us armed, has been charged with “underage sexual assault”Replies: @Thomas, @L Woods
>>To deal with the issue of potential corruption stemming from not having lifetime terms, justices would get $1 million per year lifetime pensions…..
And this point really does tell you what many of us suspect as to the character of American judges.
Article III specifies that Supreme Court Justices shall hold their office during good behavior, which has always been interpreted as a lifetime appointment.
And who would interpret this article, the Supreme Court itself? Would they really be so bold to interpret this article to their own power/vanity, defying the legislature? Who knows, but worth finding out.
I don't see any references in the MSM to Senator Feinstein's motivation, You might have expected one of the more rabid new breed Democrats like Kamala Harris to hold and nurture this kind of political cherry bomb rather than a well respected senator on the brink of retirement.
Even someone as injudicious as Harris might be wary of the blow back from such a questionable allegation. This women in psychotherapy reveals a 37 year old memory but not of where or when. All she can remember is that the perpetrator is a political enemy who is up for a big job.
No Democrat on the committee apparently would touch this shaky allegation. There have been far too many such accusations in the recent past that have been proven to be hoaxes.
But Feinstein was eager to bear this message. I think its likely that Feinstein is particularly horrified by the appointment of a strict constructionist - someone who could be expected to support the Constitution and in particular the 2nd Amendment.
Feinstein has made her career arguing against gun rights. While she herself is surrounded by a heavily armed cadre of body guards, she has argued for gun confiscation of the citizenry. If anyone tries to oppose her on this issue. She trots out the story of how she found Harvey Milk and George Moscone at City Hall.
Now she is going to retire and wants to keep as much of her political legacy as she can. Her last effort is to torpedo a man's career who might torpedo her defining issue. That could well erase her from the history books.
Or maybe she's a feminist. But if so she hasn't been associated with theer cause for all these years. Her identifying issue has long been her efforts to erase a pert of the Constitution and probably through judicial action.
Just a thought.Replies: @Lowe, @Alden, @Alden
When it comes to rape and sex crimes the association with blacks is closer than their association with basketball.
Hollywood makes movies about white men who rape black women and Al Sharpton rode a white rape hoax to fame, but in reality white men seldom do any of the sex offenses that blacks commit routinely. We have plenty of women rising up before the cameras to say - "She must be believed because she's a woman". Let's have a guy go on cable news and declare "He couldn't have done it because he's white".Replies: @Alden
Talk, talk; but we have Chubbies ( I know you guys are sick of this – my last one, I promise!)
Here is my structural reform: why don’t Republican presidents only nominate actual, real-deal conservatives from now on? Democrats can continue to appoint intellectually lightweight coalition of the fringes types. See who wins.
This is a wise and mathematically perfect solution, but presidents should be required to nominate Colorado joggers only. We want our justices to be in good health and to jog their minds regularly.
All seriousness aside, this solution really does look good now. Sold.
Another option could also be to have Supreme Court seats held for a limited term, but held by judges of the inferior federal courts, who would go back to their old seats when their term was up. (With, say, ten-year terms.) This would be the inverse of “riding circuit,” which was the practice between 1789 and 1891 of Supreme Court justices having to regularly serve on the Circuit Courts of Appeals and hear cases there as part of their duties. This would also though be of untested constitutionality.
The number of justices is by legislation. The term is handled by the Constitution Article 3 Section 1:
“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”
A better solution to reducing the importance of the Supreme Court is to aggressively reduce the scope of subject matter jurisdiction of the inferior federal courts. If the inferior federal courts don’t have jurisdiction over an issue then there’s no case to bubble up to the Supreme Court. This would go a long way toward restoring the Supreme Court to its intended purpose of ruling on Constitutional questions and disputes between the states.
The 9th Circuit should be split into at least two separate Circuits. The existing judges of the 9th Circuit should be assigned jurisdiction over all appeals arising from the District of Guam. This would, unfortunately, require these judges to relocate to Guam or choose to retire. President Trump could then appoint new judges to manage the caseload of the newly created circuit(s) to replace the 9th.
If only Republicans held control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency…
Only a serious reformation in the style of Henry 8 and Thomas Cromwell can reform the dictatorship of the black robes minions of Satan.
All seriousness aside, this solution really does look good now. Sold.Replies: @Thomas, @Brutusale
With some of what Steve has posted about the mental and political effects of different types of exercise, I’d be more comfortable sticking with weight lifters than joggers. Watch and see if Neil Gorsuch starts doing the David Souter-style drift to the left.
OT Bulgars step over wimpering cucks to exchange a manly handshake with Huns
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-hungary-bulgaria/bulgaria-pledges-solidarity-with-hungary-in-rights-standoff-with-eu-idUSKCN1LZ2BF
In order for this to work, Republicans need to reconsider their traditional “unconditional surrender” strategy.
It would require a Constitutional amendment, which is not going to happen short of a Constitutional Convention, which in turn would be a trainwreck and probably end the Republic even so far as it can still be said to exist today.
Short of such an amendment, the Justices would simply declare it unconstitutional, under some concocted penumbra. If it even got that far.
All Federal judges, including Justices of the Supreme Court, and US Senators, should be age limited out at some age, such as 70. But it is not going to happen.
OT:
Wild–and very sad–story out of Iowa, hadn’t seen this until randomly reading about Iowa State golf…
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2018/09/19/celia-barquin-arozamena-killing-iowa-state-golfer-collin-richards-drug-abuse-mental-health/1362237002/
In typical boomer fashion you think “Jeeze if every one would be reasonable this would work!”.
It does nothing to address the real issue: the Left using the courts as a rolling constitutional comvention for the past 60 years. This is why the SCOTUS, which is portrayed as the High Priests of Government, causes a Leftist freak out.
11? 22?
What’s with the entekaphilia?
Oh, I get it…
"Did you mean:
entomophilia entophilia endophilia entomophile
No results containing all your search terms were found.
Your search - entekaphilia - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
•Make sure that all words are spelled correctly.
•Try different keywords.
•Try more general keywords."
Definition, please!Replies: @Reg Cæsar
It does nothing to address the real issue: the Left using the courts as a rolling constitutional comvention for the past 60 years. This is why the SCOTUS, which is portrayed as the High Priests of Government, causes a Leftist freak out.Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Dave Pinsen, @International Jew
…should be renamed SCROTUS?
A pretty decent idea but it doesn’t really go to the roots of the problem, which has several aspects
One is that the US Congress does not implement its Constitutional supremacy, its unlimited power to remove via impeachment the judges who are not engaged in “good behaviour”, i.e., not honouring the Constitution, twisting it to fit agendas
And the second problem is the Anglo society cult of ‘law’ and ‘lawyers’ which pushes a lot of policy-making into the courts where it really doesn’t belong
The USA Constitution was flawed at the beginning, and even back in 1789 and shortly afterwards, people back then saw that its mechanisms would lead to excessive, oppressive power placed in the US Supreme Court and federal courts, even Thomas Jefferson talked about this
Just to remind everyone, the Supreme Court refuses to hear 99% of all cases presented to it … and the USA federal courts have a higher criminal rate of conviction, than the courts of Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich
But he thought we should adopt a new constitution every 20 years. Way too progressive for me, and he probably would have been down with the "rolling constitutional convention."
Even better, did you know what happens when a prisoner loses his direct appeal and then loses a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus?
A regular appeal to the higher court is called direct review.
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus is called collateral review.
The federal district judge who denied a prisoner's habeas corpus petition decides whether to issue a "certificate of appealability" allowing the prisoner to appeal the denial, often referred to as a COA. If the district judge thinks that "reasonable jurists could not disagree" with his own ruling on a federal constitutional issue, the judge refuses to let the prisoner appeal his own ruling!
If the federal district judge denies a certificate of appealability, the prisoner can then ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for a certificate of appealability.
If both the district judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals deny a certificate of appealability, then the prisoner has no right to appeal the denial/dismissal of his habeas corpus petition. How convenient.Replies: @Lowe
Gee, next time Democrats capture House, Senate, and White House, why not up the number of justices to 22 and flood the conservative originalist majority out of power.
Change is bad.
It does nothing to address the real issue: the Left using the courts as a rolling constitutional comvention for the past 60 years. This is why the SCOTUS, which is portrayed as the High Priests of Government, causes a Leftist freak out.Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Dave Pinsen, @International Jew
I suspect the temperature would be lower if Senators were still elected by state legislatures.
Heh, a gerontocracy. We could call it the Senate.
It does nothing to address the real issue: the Left using the courts as a rolling constitutional comvention for the past 60 years. This is why the SCOTUS, which is portrayed as the High Priests of Government, causes a Leftist freak out.Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Dave Pinsen, @International Jew
Nice term for it!
Think of the lightweights who’d currently be excluded: Booker, Gillibrand, etc.
>>Article III specifies that Supreme Court Justices shall hold their office during good behavior, which has always been interpreted as a lifetime appointment.
And who would interpret this article, the Supreme Court itself? Would they really be so bold to interpret this article to their own power/vanity, defying the legislature? Who knows, but worth finding out.
Maybe the Huns will take Châlons this time.
“The way to reform the Supreme Court ”
Expand the talent pool that is willing and able. Why do they all have to live/work in DC. They should be able to work out of any Federal Court house, sort of like the way the Federal Reserve operates. Actually, why not move all sorts of bureaucracies out of DC?
I like it for the senate. We wouldn’t have to deal with presidential wannabes making a spectacle of themselves.
A typical fair, reasonable, let’s-just-get-along-with-everybody white guy solution. And that’s why it will be resented immediately by anybody who has a Voice.
The real US interest in the region are Algeria’s natural gas resources.
The Algerians are a very proud people who will not allow a US base in their territory.
The Tunisians don’t have a lot of gas and need cash.
This is also why there is an enormous drone base under construction over the border in Niger.
Maybe a maximum age for new justices?
how about we just end the USA instead? That has about as much chance as your proposal, and mine would be far more beneficial..
I think it would be better to require that they step down at a certain age, such as 82. Then the million-dollar yearly stipend is unnecessary.
You could sell this to the judges themselves by pointing out that increasing polarization in the nation incentivizes assassination.
All seriousness aside, this solution really does look good now. Sold.Replies: @Thomas, @Brutusale
No nominees who can’t deadlift at least 225. I imagine that would lead to serious ideological unity on the bench.
Apparently our country still believes, as the Romans did, that a Senate should consist of elders. I believe this is called the “argument by etymology” fallacy, based on the fact that the words “senate” and “senile” have the same root.
Wouldn’t the bench press be a better assessment for someone who is going to be on the bench?
One million a year seems excessive. How about $300,000, with annual COLA’s?
What you propose is similar with the system of Brazil. Here the Supreme Court has 11 judges. They usually are nominated in their mid-40ies or early 50ies. And they need to resign after 75 years old. Originaly, they needded to resign with 70 years old (like all public servants), but because a left party was in power for 15 years, the Supreme Court almost was completely dominated by left leaning judges. So, the Congress extended the age of work of the judges for more 5 years.
I like the idea, but I also think we need to have a limit on declarations of unconstitutionality. We can’t have any more Roes and any more Obergefells. Or even Griggs v. Duke Power.
I think any declaration of unconstitutionality requires another trip line, such as a three-quarters majority of state governors to agree within 30 days.
Something like that.
Once the Supreme Court stops imposing its weird, creepy worldview on the rest of the country, the cultural wars will move to the legislatures, where the cultural wars will dissipate amid compromise that matches the current culture. Everyone wins.
This applies across the aisle expressed as a conservative Supreme Court protects muh second amendment ™
OT: Cody Wilson, who actually does something to keep us armed, has been charged with “underage sexual assault”
What's with the entekaphilia?
Oh, I get it...
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81cTv3JPwQL._SX569_.jpgReplies: @Alias Anonymous
Entekaphilia? A google search resulted in the following:
“Did you mean:
entomophilia entophilia endophilia entomophile
No results containing all your search terms were found.
Your search – entekaphilia – did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
•Make sure that all words are spelled correctly.
•Try different keywords.
•Try more general keywords.”
Definition, please!
In colonial times, the king appointed the judges, and, if he didn’t like they way they ruled, he got rid of them and selected others more to his liking. The lifetime tenure of federal judges is a direct result of this policy. Also, at that time, life expectancy wasn’t as great as it is now. True, a handful of people survived into their 80’s and 90’s, but not nearly as many as today. If George Washington appointed a 50 year old man a judge, he was not likely to last too long.
That being said, it is interesting to note that no state selects their judges this way. In my state, ALL officials, including governor, state legislators and judges are elected and term-limited. This seems a much better way to handle the situation. There are nine judicial districts in the US. Have each one elect a SCOTUS justice for a fixed term (maybe five or six years), and allow them to seek reelection once. Then they would be done.
This would make the court more representative of the country as a whole. This and going back to having state senates elect our senate would reintroduce flyover people's concerns to governance.
I like it: returning a measure of federalism to us to help reverse the huge amount of damage the left has done by centralizing everything since the New Deal.
Of course it would need a constitutional amendment… And yes, I realize that the left rarely bothers with constitutional amendments themselves, preferring simply to pretend that the Constitution always meant whatever shiny new thing they suddenly want. And unfortunately, this has worked spectacularly well for them.
“Another option could be to make the Supreme Court even larger than 11 justices,”
How about making it even larger: abolish the fucking Court of Owls and have the voters decide these issues. It’s called an election.
Nothing will ever change with respect to the Supreme Court, the issue is too political. But most definitely the 9th Circuit needs to be broken up…
Restricting a Justice to a defined term of years would require a Constitutional Amendment to edit “shall hold their offices during good behavior.” You’d also incentivize gamesmanship within litigation to try to engineer a case to reach the Court before or after a mandatory retirement of Justice S0-and-So.
A better approach would be an Act of Congress to expand the Court to something like 19, 23 or 25 Justices over time, adding perhaps 2 justices every four years until the set number is reached.
Some State appellate Courts have roughly that number of judges on their Appellate Courts. More Justices would mean that each death or retirement and consequent replacement has far lower stakes. If Kennedy wasn’t the swing vote, but one of five swing votes we wouldn’t be having this nation-rending hullabaloo. We’d also be less likely to be treated to the ridiculous display of a decrepit old yenta’s workout routine with 1.5lb dumbbells. We’re a bad flu season away from doing this all over again.
However as things stand right now Abortion Enthusiasts know that the Court is one vote away from seriously reconsidering Roe, and Gun People know that it is one vote away from writing the Second Amendment out of the Constitution at the earliest opportunity.
I’d prefer an Amendment which would allow a process for 2/3 of the States (33) through their legislatures to vacate any holding of the Supreme Court.
I’ve been saying this for a while. State legislatures would probably just choose from among their own members most of the time, and it’d be much harder for limited interests to fund a Senate race because the money would be distributed to dozens and dozens of State legislators.
Why do you reckon a change like Mr. Sailer’s proposal would require a constitutional amendment? (As he writes, it would not.)
Although as it happens, Steve's term limits or age limits for SC Judges would also require an Amendment, since--as other commenters have pointed out--the language of the Constitution means life terms.
Absent a war, and soon, they are right.
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior,
In the common law tradition, "during good behavior" excludes a fixed term.Replies: @Autochthon
In the tradition of common sense, “during good behaviour” excludes nearly all judges and justices….
Issuing "rulings" that remove all force and meaning from the Ninth Amendment (unenumerated rights) and the Tenth Amendment (decentralization and a presumption against federal government authority to act), is likewise a willful violation of the Constitution and thus NOT good behavior.Replies: @Alden
Yes, but i lile that. I like watching 90 lb living jewish skeleton ginsburg struggling to stay alive.
Im also looking forward to Sotomayors future attempts to serve theough multiple diabetes related amputations and elena kagan’s geriatric lesbianism.
I enjoy watching the govt people suffer.
They all have to go: time-in-office limit, plus mandatory retirement age, plus the need to face voters in a retention election after about five years.
Short of that, States will simply have to ignore and disobey the edicts of those nine vicious, arrogant, elitist lawyers.
Added bonus: no more hysteria among judges. (Well, maybe that Chyna creature or, under current mores, Martin Rathblatt types who like to dress up as women could qualify, but they’d at least still be fundamentally capable of logic and rational thought, as actual females mostly are not…).
OT: Cody Wilson, who actually does something to keep us armed, has been charged with “underage sexual assault”Replies: @Thomas, @L Woods
Not anywhere close to the same degree. SCOTUS has taken exactly one Second Amendment case in the eight years since Heller and McDonald, dealing with possession of a stun gun, and has been punting everything else. The lower courts have been all over the map with Second Amendment opinions.
What are the political leanings of the 11 members of the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court? I looked up the court on Wikipedia, which is how I found out it has 11 members. Apparently they also have mandatory retirement at 75.
I bring up Brazil because that is the closest thing to the demographic future of the United States. When I look at the pictures of the justices, they hardly look more diverse than the SCOTUS. They all appear to be very light-skinned Hispanics. What I have not figured out is how many of them are far leftists.
IMPEACH THOSE EVIL RAT JUDGES IN BLACK DRESSES NOW!
Better idea- abolish the supreme court. The highest level court are now the United States district courts. Precedent and law varies depending on the region of the country you are in.
“Court of last resort” is congress, giving them something to do with their time instead of just grandstanding.
Whenever there’s a bad Court decision, I’m always surprised I don’t see anyone trotting out a “Duns SCOTUS” joke or two. Seems pretty obvious to me. Maybe not looking in the right spots, or maybe it’s so old they stopped cracking that one in 1846.
Maybe when we get Steve’s quite sensible fix enacted, we can add the new name as a rider.
Impeach Those Bastard Judges Now!
US Supreme Court Judges — Federal Judges — Dog Show Judges — I don’t care, IMPEACH!
Listen to Eat A Peach from the Allman Brothers Band and begin IMPEACHMENT proceedings immediately!
Tweets from 2014:
Future Dialogue For A Character In A New David Lynch Movie:
I’ll IMPEACH anything that moves!
Better reform:
Term limits for Congresscritters.
One is that the US Congress does not implement its Constitutional supremacy, its unlimited power to remove via impeachment the judges who are not engaged in "good behaviour", i.e., not honouring the Constitution, twisting it to fit agendas
And the second problem is the Anglo society cult of 'law' and 'lawyers' which pushes a lot of policy-making into the courts where it really doesn't belong
The USA Constitution was flawed at the beginning, and even back in 1789 and shortly afterwards, people back then saw that its mechanisms would lead to excessive, oppressive power placed in the US Supreme Court and federal courts, even Thomas Jefferson talked about this
Just to remind everyone, the Supreme Court refuses to hear 99% of all cases presented to it ... and the USA federal courts have a higher criminal rate of conviction, than the courts of Adolf Hitler's Third ReichReplies: @Lowe, @Carol, @RadicalCenter
Perhaps the US federal courts are selective about whom they prosecute.
One is that the US Congress does not implement its Constitutional supremacy, its unlimited power to remove via impeachment the judges who are not engaged in "good behaviour", i.e., not honouring the Constitution, twisting it to fit agendas
And the second problem is the Anglo society cult of 'law' and 'lawyers' which pushes a lot of policy-making into the courts where it really doesn't belong
The USA Constitution was flawed at the beginning, and even back in 1789 and shortly afterwards, people back then saw that its mechanisms would lead to excessive, oppressive power placed in the US Supreme Court and federal courts, even Thomas Jefferson talked about this
Just to remind everyone, the Supreme Court refuses to hear 99% of all cases presented to it ... and the USA federal courts have a higher criminal rate of conviction, than the courts of Adolf Hitler's Third ReichReplies: @Lowe, @Carol, @RadicalCenter
Thomas Jefferson talked about this
But he thought we should adopt a new constitution every 20 years. Way too progressive for me, and he probably would have been down with the “rolling constitutional convention.”
“This should not take a constitutional amendment, since the number and term of Supreme Court justices is not specified in the Constitution.”
so then, just like anything else, when the democrats are ready to change the law to suit their needs, they’ll just change it back to whatever they want. when they have the votes, they’ll just vote to eliminate a couple of the conservative justices, or change the law so the sitting democrat president can appoint 5 new democrat justices right now, or whatever they can come up with, and the republicans will be ok with it after it’s ‘settled law’.
pretty dumb idea steve. think this through next time.
Unironically agreeing here.
Im also looking forward to Sotomayors future attempts to serve theough multiple diabetes related amputations and elena kagan's geriatric lesbianism.
I enjoy watching the govt people suffer.Replies: @RadicalCenter
Except that they will still be issuing “rulings” ensuring that our children suffer.
They all have to go: time-in-office limit, plus mandatory retirement age, plus the need to face voters in a retention election after about five years.
Short of that, States will simply have to ignore and disobey the edicts of those nine vicious, arrogant, elitist lawyers.
"Court of last resort" is congress, giving them something to do with their time instead of just grandstanding.Replies: @RadicalCenter
A district court is bound by holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court, then by “published” decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the applicable region (Circuit).
The vast majority of federal appeals are heard by three-judge “panels” of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Circuit in question. Only occasionally does a Court of Appeals agree to rehear a case “en banc.” In all circuits other than the Ninth Circuit, en banc means that every active member of the Court of Appeals hears and votes on the rehearing of the case. Because of the absurd size of the Ninth Circuit, “en banc” rehearings there are done not by the whole Court of Appeals but by a randomly selected sample of the Court of Appeals judges.
A three-judge panel of a U.S. Court of Appeals typically does NOT have authority to overrule or modify an earlier published decision of another three-judge panel. Only the “en banc” Court of appeals can do that.
“Unpublished” decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals have no general “precedential value”, meaning that district courts are not obligated to follow their holdings or reasoning in cases that do not involve the same parties (or their successors-in-interest, privies, etc.). The great majority of decisions by the U.S. Courts of Appeal are unpublished and thus are not precedentially binding on the district courts.
The U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear a case, by granting a petitioner for writ of certiorari, in only 2-3% percent of cases.
The practical effect is that the U.S. Courts of Appeals (not the district courts) are the final arbiter of most issues for long periods of time until the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that raises the issue.
One is that the US Congress does not implement its Constitutional supremacy, its unlimited power to remove via impeachment the judges who are not engaged in "good behaviour", i.e., not honouring the Constitution, twisting it to fit agendas
And the second problem is the Anglo society cult of 'law' and 'lawyers' which pushes a lot of policy-making into the courts where it really doesn't belong
The USA Constitution was flawed at the beginning, and even back in 1789 and shortly afterwards, people back then saw that its mechanisms would lead to excessive, oppressive power placed in the US Supreme Court and federal courts, even Thomas Jefferson talked about this
Just to remind everyone, the Supreme Court refuses to hear 99% of all cases presented to it ... and the USA federal courts have a higher criminal rate of conviction, than the courts of Adolf Hitler's Third ReichReplies: @Lowe, @Carol, @RadicalCenter
Excellent point about the federal conviction rates. And those convictions are overwhelmingly by guilty plea, not by jury trial or even bench trial.
Even better, did you know what happens when a prisoner loses his direct appeal and then loses a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus?
A regular appeal to the higher court is called direct review.
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus is called collateral review.
The federal district judge who denied a prisoner’s habeas corpus petition decides whether to issue a “certificate of appealability” allowing the prisoner to appeal the denial, often referred to as a COA. If the district judge thinks that “reasonable jurists could not disagree” with his own ruling on a federal constitutional issue, the judge refuses to let the prisoner appeal his own ruling!
If the federal district judge denies a certificate of appealability, the prisoner can then ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for a certificate of appealability.
If both the district judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals deny a certificate of appealability, then the prisoner has no right to appeal the denial/dismissal of his habeas corpus petition. How convenient.
Issuing “rulings” that allow the federal government to act in areas where the Constitution has not expressly given the fed gov an enumerated power, is itself a willful violation of the Constitution and thus NOT “good behavior.”
Issuing “rulings” that remove all force and meaning from the Ninth Amendment (unenumerated rights) and the Tenth Amendment (decentralization and a presumption against federal government authority to act), is likewise a willful violation of the Constitution and thus NOT good behavior.
Check out the worst ruling by any court ever. Ruling in Louisiana Slaughter case 1870s reversesd a very sensible public health environmental protection law passed by the Louisiana legaslature.
The law forbade slaughterhouses from dumping blood intestines feces and other slaughterhouse waste of dead animals into ponds lakes creeks bayous the mighty missip and any other water in the State.
The supremes overturned that law.
From dumping animal waste into the waters to dumping vicious black Orcs into schools in White suburbs, the Judges rule.
The key to reforming the S. Ct. is to make Congress actually legislate specifics – thus reducing the importance of the S. Ct. For example Congress could decide (if it wished) that CO2 is a pollutant. It never did. Instead it passed vague enabling legislation giving the EPA the power to regulate pollutants. Now the power is in the hands of the bureaucracy and the only question (which ends up in court) is whether the agency has the decided correctly or had the power to decide and so it is the S. Ct. that ends up determining: “Is CO2 a pollutant that can be controlled by the EPA?” This is how we are actually governed now and this is why the fight over the Court is so critical. Congress has abdicated governing, preferring vague enabling legislation which in the future may as well be something like: Agency X should make sure only good things are done for the general welfare. Then the Court will decide: Does this regulation accomplish good things for the general welfare?
We no longer have an actual legislative body.
That being said, it is interesting to note that no state selects their judges this way. In my state, ALL officials, including governor, state legislators and judges are elected and term-limited. This seems a much better way to handle the situation. There are nine judicial districts in the US. Have each one elect a SCOTUS justice for a fixed term (maybe five or six years), and allow them to seek reelection once. Then they would be done.Replies: @densa
There are nine judicial districts in the US. Have each one elect a SCOTUS justice for a fixed term (maybe five or six years), and allow them to seek reelection once.
This would make the court more representative of the country as a whole. This and going back to having state senates elect our senate would reintroduce flyover people’s concerns to governance.
So are all the Brazilian court justices still leftists? Or has that changed?
How about just stack the damn Court?
There is no Constitutional requirement that there be 9 justices. I imagine by the time we get to 15 or 19 justices, ideologues will just stick to battling things out in the legislatures.
OT
I don’t see any references in the MSM to Senator Feinstein’s motivation, You might have expected one of the more rabid new breed Democrats like Kamala Harris to hold and nurture this kind of political cherry bomb rather than a well respected senator on the brink of retirement.
Even someone as injudicious as Harris might be wary of the blow back from such a questionable allegation. This women in psychotherapy reveals a 37 year old memory but not of where or when. All she can remember is that the perpetrator is a political enemy who is up for a big job.
No Democrat on the committee apparently would touch this shaky allegation. There have been far too many such accusations in the recent past that have been proven to be hoaxes.
But Feinstein was eager to bear this message. I think its likely that Feinstein is particularly horrified by the appointment of a strict constructionist – someone who could be expected to support the Constitution and in particular the 2nd Amendment.
Feinstein has made her career arguing against gun rights. While she herself is surrounded by a heavily armed cadre of body guards, she has argued for gun confiscation of the citizenry. If anyone tries to oppose her on this issue. She trots out the story of how she found Harvey Milk and George Moscone at City Hall.
Now she is going to retire and wants to keep as much of her political legacy as she can. Her last effort is to torpedo a man’s career who might torpedo her defining issue. That could well erase her from the history books.
Or maybe she’s a feminist. But if so she hasn’t been associated with theer cause for all these years. Her identifying issue has long been her efforts to erase a pert of the Constitution and probably through judicial action.
Just a thought.
She has one of those law enforcement exemptions when she flies commercial.
I’ve never seen her with bodyguards when she’s at home. Maybe in black criminal infested DC.
Ostensibly it’s because abortion is the first commandment of Judaism and the Catholic Church is against abortion.
The real reason it that because the Catholic Church was the only entity that successfully stood against Judiasm they hate Catholics much much more than they hate Muslims and Protestants
When they think catholic they think her most catholic majesty Isabella who kicked both Muslims and Jewish slave dealers of 10 to 14 year old catholic slave girls out of Spain.
Jews also claim the the WW 2 Pope wasn’t able to prevent the Nazis from ruling Germany and murdering all the Jews.
Never forgive, never forget is their motto.
"Did you mean:
entomophilia entophilia endophilia entomophile
No results containing all your search terms were found.
Your search - entekaphilia - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
•Make sure that all words are spelled correctly.
•Try different keywords.
•Try more general keywords."
Definition, please!Replies: @Reg Cæsar
It’s the opposite of entekaphobia, which indeed does Google.
Another thing that no one seems to want to mention is the racial issue. Blacks are the criminal race. The three crimes that are most closely associated with Negroes are : murder, robbery and rape. Each of these is somewhere around 500% to 1,000% of white or East Asian rates.
When it comes to rape and sex crimes the association with blacks is closer than their association with basketball.
Hollywood makes movies about white men who rape black women and Al Sharpton rode a white rape hoax to fame, but in reality white men seldom do any of the sex offenses that blacks commit routinely. We have plenty of women rising up before the cameras to say – “She must be believed because she’s a woman”. Let’s have a guy go on cable news and declare “He couldn’t have done it because he’s white”.
Like shoplifters, they are serial offenders, charged 14 times, convicted 5 times and God knows how many rapes they actually committed without being caught.
… from the Moors, I suspect.
Two other things:
1. They should be required to “ride circuit” like in the 1800s, serving on courts in all parts of the country with other judges now and then.
2. The court building should be moved to Des Moines, Iowa.
I don't see any references in the MSM to Senator Feinstein's motivation, You might have expected one of the more rabid new breed Democrats like Kamala Harris to hold and nurture this kind of political cherry bomb rather than a well respected senator on the brink of retirement.
Even someone as injudicious as Harris might be wary of the blow back from such a questionable allegation. This women in psychotherapy reveals a 37 year old memory but not of where or when. All she can remember is that the perpetrator is a political enemy who is up for a big job.
No Democrat on the committee apparently would touch this shaky allegation. There have been far too many such accusations in the recent past that have been proven to be hoaxes.
But Feinstein was eager to bear this message. I think its likely that Feinstein is particularly horrified by the appointment of a strict constructionist - someone who could be expected to support the Constitution and in particular the 2nd Amendment.
Feinstein has made her career arguing against gun rights. While she herself is surrounded by a heavily armed cadre of body guards, she has argued for gun confiscation of the citizenry. If anyone tries to oppose her on this issue. She trots out the story of how she found Harvey Milk and George Moscone at City Hall.
Now she is going to retire and wants to keep as much of her political legacy as she can. Her last effort is to torpedo a man's career who might torpedo her defining issue. That could well erase her from the history books.
Or maybe she's a feminist. But if so she hasn't been associated with theer cause for all these years. Her identifying issue has long been her efforts to erase a pert of the Constitution and probably through judicial action.
Just a thought.Replies: @Lowe, @Alden, @Alden
Erase her from the history books? Dianne Feinstein will at best be a minor historical figure, someone only professional historians and commentators know about, in about 50 years. Nothing happening now will change that, in either direction.
Even better, did you know what happens when a prisoner loses his direct appeal and then loses a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus?
A regular appeal to the higher court is called direct review.
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus is called collateral review.
The federal district judge who denied a prisoner's habeas corpus petition decides whether to issue a "certificate of appealability" allowing the prisoner to appeal the denial, often referred to as a COA. If the district judge thinks that "reasonable jurists could not disagree" with his own ruling on a federal constitutional issue, the judge refuses to let the prisoner appeal his own ruling!
If the federal district judge denies a certificate of appealability, the prisoner can then ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for a certificate of appealability.
If both the district judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals deny a certificate of appealability, then the prisoner has no right to appeal the denial/dismissal of his habeas corpus petition. How convenient.Replies: @Lowe
What are you complaining about? It sounds like you have to be denied like 4 times, from what you wrote here. How many appeals is a convicted person supposed to get?
Maybe we should have 535 Supreme Court justices, one to correspond with every House and Senate member. This would be too many to fight over.
Oh, no, Tiger Mom Amy Chua and her husband accused of being pimps for Judge Kavanaugh:
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/professor-reportedly-told-students-kavanaugh-172813736.html
This is the opening salvo in a new front in the #MeToo offensive: Jewish women going after their men who turn "race traitor" and pick Asian spouses.
The 9th Circuit should be split into at least two separate Circuits. The existing judges of the 9th Circuit should be assigned jurisdiction over all appeals arising from the District of Guam. This would, unfortunately, require these judges to relocate to Guam or choose to retire. President Trump could then appoint new judges to manage the caseload of the newly created circuit(s) to replace the 9th.
If only Republicans held control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency...Replies: @Alden
Like every other occupation, judges want to expand their employment opportunities. Judges also want to expand their power to legislate and their ultimate power to veto legislation at the drop of an ACLU SPLC NAACP BLM ADL AJC NOW LGBTU lawsuit.
Only a serious reformation in the style of Henry 8 and Thomas Cromwell can reform the dictatorship of the black robes minions of Satan.
Short of such an amendment, the Justices would simply declare it unconstitutional, under some concocted penumbra. If it even got that far.
All Federal judges, including Justices of the Supreme Court, and US Senators, should be age limited out at some age, such as 70. But it is not going to happen.Replies: @Alden, @Svigor
I won’t say what I think should happen to the judiciary because it’s illegal.
Yeah but that would delegitimize us saying “die, Ginsburg!!!”
And where’s the fun in that?
What has the small reasonably peaceful country of Tunisia done to annoy the mighty USA?
Or do our special forces just need a small country to practice warfare on like Panama and Grenada?
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/professor-reportedly-told-students-kavanaugh-172813736.htmlReplies: @Svigor, @The Man From K Street
Well, it’s clearly an antisemitic practice.
When it comes to rape and sex crimes the association with blacks is closer than their association with basketball.
Hollywood makes movies about white men who rape black women and Al Sharpton rode a white rape hoax to fame, but in reality white men seldom do any of the sex offenses that blacks commit routinely. We have plenty of women rising up before the cameras to say - "She must be believed because she's a woman". Let's have a guy go on cable news and declare "He couldn't have done it because he's white".Replies: @Alden
More that 20 years as a San Francisco Probation Officer with the rape caseload dumped on me. I never met a convicted rapist who was anything other than black. Black percentage of the city was between 9 and 11 percent during those years.
Like shoplifters, they are serial offenders, charged 14 times, convicted 5 times and God knows how many rapes they actually committed without being caught.
No amount of reshuffling of deck chairs changes where this is going. For someone constantly fluffed by his galaxy brained commentariat as being a leading edge thinker as you are, you have this amazing blind spot about what the true intentions of the communists are.
This ends with an exchange of post transition metals and large exothermic reactions. Cest la vie, cest la guerre.
I don't see any references in the MSM to Senator Feinstein's motivation, You might have expected one of the more rabid new breed Democrats like Kamala Harris to hold and nurture this kind of political cherry bomb rather than a well respected senator on the brink of retirement.
Even someone as injudicious as Harris might be wary of the blow back from such a questionable allegation. This women in psychotherapy reveals a 37 year old memory but not of where or when. All she can remember is that the perpetrator is a political enemy who is up for a big job.
No Democrat on the committee apparently would touch this shaky allegation. There have been far too many such accusations in the recent past that have been proven to be hoaxes.
But Feinstein was eager to bear this message. I think its likely that Feinstein is particularly horrified by the appointment of a strict constructionist - someone who could be expected to support the Constitution and in particular the 2nd Amendment.
Feinstein has made her career arguing against gun rights. While she herself is surrounded by a heavily armed cadre of body guards, she has argued for gun confiscation of the citizenry. If anyone tries to oppose her on this issue. She trots out the story of how she found Harvey Milk and George Moscone at City Hall.
Now she is going to retire and wants to keep as much of her political legacy as she can. Her last effort is to torpedo a man's career who might torpedo her defining issue. That could well erase her from the history books.
Or maybe she's a feminist. But if so she hasn't been associated with theer cause for all these years. Her identifying issue has long been her efforts to erase a pert of the Constitution and probably through judicial action.
Just a thought.Replies: @Lowe, @Alden, @Alden
Feinstein has been carrying a gun in her expensive purses since around 1960 when she was appointed to the California state parole board. She has carried ever since wherever she goes.
She has one of those law enforcement exemptions when she flies commercial.
I’ve never seen her with bodyguards when she’s at home. Maybe in black criminal infested DC.
Issuing "rulings" that remove all force and meaning from the Ninth Amendment (unenumerated rights) and the Tenth Amendment (decentralization and a presumption against federal government authority to act), is likewise a willful violation of the Constitution and thus NOT good behavior.Replies: @Alden
The S court has been issuing findings that become law since 1804. School bussing was solely a judicial ruling subjecting millions of White children to 12 years of torture by black Orcs.
Check out the worst ruling by any court ever. Ruling in Louisiana Slaughter case 1870s reversesd a very sensible public health environmental protection law passed by the Louisiana legaslature.
The law forbade slaughterhouses from dumping blood intestines feces and other slaughterhouse waste of dead animals into ponds lakes creeks bayous the mighty missip and any other water in the State.
The supremes overturned that law.
From dumping animal waste into the waters to dumping vicious black Orcs into schools in White suburbs, the Judges rule.
Looks like someone managed to dig up Mrs. Ford’s yearbooks from Holton:
http://cultofthe1st.blogspot.com/2018/09/why-christine-blasey-fords-high-school_19.html?m=1
Her yearbooks seem to indicate she and her classmates may have had issues with sobriety and keeping their legs closed.
Leftists always project their problem behavior onto others. Always.
so then, just like anything else, when the democrats are ready to change the law to suit their needs, they'll just change it back to whatever they want. when they have the votes, they'll just vote to eliminate a couple of the conservative justices, or change the law so the sitting democrat president can appoint 5 new democrat justices right now, or whatever they can come up with, and the republicans will be ok with it after it's 'settled law'.
pretty dumb idea steve. think this through next time.Replies: @Svigor
Congress can do any or all of that any time they like. If you think non-leftist tradition is holding the left back on anything you’re bonkers.
I don't see any references in the MSM to Senator Feinstein's motivation, You might have expected one of the more rabid new breed Democrats like Kamala Harris to hold and nurture this kind of political cherry bomb rather than a well respected senator on the brink of retirement.
Even someone as injudicious as Harris might be wary of the blow back from such a questionable allegation. This women in psychotherapy reveals a 37 year old memory but not of where or when. All she can remember is that the perpetrator is a political enemy who is up for a big job.
No Democrat on the committee apparently would touch this shaky allegation. There have been far too many such accusations in the recent past that have been proven to be hoaxes.
But Feinstein was eager to bear this message. I think its likely that Feinstein is particularly horrified by the appointment of a strict constructionist - someone who could be expected to support the Constitution and in particular the 2nd Amendment.
Feinstein has made her career arguing against gun rights. While she herself is surrounded by a heavily armed cadre of body guards, she has argued for gun confiscation of the citizenry. If anyone tries to oppose her on this issue. She trots out the story of how she found Harvey Milk and George Moscone at City Hall.
Now she is going to retire and wants to keep as much of her political legacy as she can. Her last effort is to torpedo a man's career who might torpedo her defining issue. That could well erase her from the history books.
Or maybe she's a feminist. But if so she hasn't been associated with theer cause for all these years. Her identifying issue has long been her efforts to erase a pert of the Constitution and probably through judicial action.
Just a thought.Replies: @Lowe, @Alden, @Alden
Feinstein’s a Jew. Kavanaugh’s a Catholic. Jews are adamant that Catholics should not be appointed red to the Supreme Court
Ostensibly it’s because abortion is the first commandment of Judaism and the Catholic Church is against abortion.
The real reason it that because the Catholic Church was the only entity that successfully stood against Judiasm they hate Catholics much much more than they hate Muslims and Protestants
When they think catholic they think her most catholic majesty Isabella who kicked both Muslims and Jewish slave dealers of 10 to 14 year old catholic slave girls out of Spain.
Jews also claim the the WW 2 Pope wasn’t able to prevent the Nazis from ruling Germany and murdering all the Jews.
Never forgive, never forget is their motto.
Short of such an amendment, the Justices would simply declare it unconstitutional, under some concocted penumbra. If it even got that far.
All Federal judges, including Justices of the Supreme Court, and US Senators, should be age limited out at some age, such as 70. But it is not going to happen.Replies: @Alden, @Svigor
This is the current learned helplessness. A Congress set on reestablishing Constitutional rule could nip this in the bud PDQ: fire everybody that declared it “unconstitutional” (it isn’t. The Constitution gives Congress almost total control of how SCotUS is constituted) and replace them with real judges. Repeat until morale improves.
The problem is really straightforward: Congress is full of people who either like the current situation, or are too afraid of the lugenpresse to correct it.
OT: Cody Wilson, who actually does something to keep us armed, has been charged with “underage sexual assault”Replies: @Thomas, @L Woods
Yes, he “assaulted” a willing teenaged (“child”) prostitute who claimed to be 18. Its oppressively asinine cultural mores like this that make me seriously consider the upsides of the present society’s demise.
Good idea.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/professor-reportedly-told-students-kavanaugh-172813736.htmlReplies: @Svigor, @The Man From K Street
The Guardian reported today that a) Chua regularly groomed female clerks for deportment and looks if they were interviewing with Kavanaugh (“They all looked like models!” the paper exclaims) and b) her husband is on some kind of admistrative leave/investigation for sexual misconduct.
This is the opening salvo in a new front in the #MeToo offensive: Jewish women going after their men who turn “race traitor” and pick Asian spouses.
This whole saga is threatening to become a Krakatoa-level eruption of iSteve themes…
I said “ties go back to the Appellate Circuit” would require a Constitutional Amendment.
Although as it happens, Steve’s term limits or age limits for SC Judges would also require an Amendment, since–as other commenters have pointed out–the language of the Constitution means life terms.
Sorry, this suggestion is not up to your standards. Being that an amendment would be required to change the lifetime tenure, it is just a castle in the air. The lifetime tenure is in the constitution, but the number 9 is not. Practically, a majority can seat all the judges they want. Pack the court? Why not? A better way would be to limit their juristiction. A simple majority in the Congress (both houses) can strip the judges of their juristiction over virtually everything. I postulate that getting a simple majority in the Congress is far more practical than attempting to amend the constitution. Republicans did it under Lincoln.
Congress can rein in SCOTUS and all inferior courts anytime it wants to. None of these robed rump swabs have any authority to declare any law unconstitutional, much less a President’s Executive Order. I’d like to see DJT tell one of the morons to go pound sand.