![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fridiSaying the quiet part loudly. Since this is the case (and has been for some time) I think SC judges should not get a lifetime appointment and should be elected like every other politician. In an ideal world that would've been the case a long time ago. But we don't live in that world, do we?
Sarah Sanders: "Congratulations Judge Kavanaugh! Instead of a 6-3 liberal Supreme Court under Hillary Clinton, we now have a 5-4 conservative Supreme Court under President @realDonaldTrump, cementing a tremendous legacy for the President and a better future for America"
The problem might be the illusion that we can have judges who are not political. At a minimum they are liberal, moderate, or conservative, and the way the system exists, it’s the President who nominates, and the Congress that confirms. So right now it’s a double whammy against liberals.
However note that Obama’s pick Garland was a moderate judge, so it’s the Democrats who still display principles, while the Republicans are going for the throats of those who oppose them. It’s the primary way backwards principles can still prevail in a modern world.
How can incentive be made to pick moderate judges? It’s what the US desperately needs, unless you want the ideological war to continue.
As for lifetime appointments, I suppose there is an argument for stability in the court versus being churned over every election cycle, but the thought of a conservative court with their heads up theirs asses does make me a bit nauseous. Corporations are people, freedom of religion is putting people under your big theist thumb, and other such bullshit.
Sarah Sanders: "Congratulations Judge Kavanaugh! Instead of a 6-3 liberal Supreme Court under Hillary Clinton, we now have a 5-4 conservative Supreme Court under President @realDonaldTrump, cementing a tremendous legacy for the President and a better future for America"
The problem might be the illusion that we can have judges who are not political. At a minimum they are liberal, moderate, or conservative, and the way the system exists, it’s the President who nominates, and the Congress that confirms. So right now it’s a double whammy against liberals.
However note that Obama’s pick Garland was a moderate judge, so it’s the Democrats who still display principles, while the Republicans are going for the throats of those who oppose them. It’s the primary way backwards principles can still prevail in a modern world.
How can incentive be made to pick moderate judges? It’s what the US desperately needs, unless you want the ideological war to continue.
As for lifetime appointments, I suppose there is an argument for stability in the court versus being churned over every election cycle, but the thought of a conservative court with their heads up theirs asses does make me a bit nauseous. Corporations are people, freedom of religion is putting people under your big theist thumb, and other such bullshit.
