US Supreme Court too liberal by representation

[UncleBuck]

But let us not pretend that a persons background affects their jurisprudence.

thanks for defeating your own argument, retard.

 

[Glaucoma]

I'm asking for a court that actually reflects the national makeup.

We're gonna need a whole lot more Justices.

 

[earnest_voice]

Of the 9 members all but one are from the north east, the only non northeastern member is Californian.

Despite very low proportion of population, three justices are Jews.

The remaining six are at least nominally Catholic.

The evangelicals, protestant Christians are unrepresented despite being the largest religious group in the nation.

The south, despite having 1/3 the population a significant chunk of the growth of the economy are also unrepresented.

Liberals claim this court is too conservative, but the reality is if it made up a more true representation of America, it should be more conservative.

the evangelicals are nuts and have no business holding office - you would also fall into this category.

Christians have had they're time running the planet and fucked it for all of us for a good period of time.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Not at all. But let us not pretend that a persons background affects their jurisprudence.

I'm asking for a representative court that reflects the makeup of America on substance, not superficial things like penises and vaginas. Whit or black and brown skin.

I'm asking for a court that actually reflects the national makeup.

That's the purpose of the legislative branch

The Judiciary explains and applies the laws the legislative creates

That's also why senators and congressmen are elected officials, because they make up the representation of each district and why judges are appointed by the executive of the nation and why they serve indefinite terms

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

".....they serve indefinite terms."

well, there ya go..........a monarchy of "justice."
execute them, and elect a new bench, for a term of six years, and see if they can deliver up some justice to the American people, instead of procuring regal rights for their former employers. a real SCOTUS would balance the other branches, instead of joining in the coup.

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

I'll kick Clarence's chair out from under him myself. yeah......I know......he's black. hung anyway. no more over-sensitivity. we're gonna hang that, too.

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

Pad, you're about as revolutionary as Andy Griffith. your "revolution" is framed within a Matrix. it makes you feel like you're "doing something;" you're not.........................

 

[Padawanbater2]

".....they serve indefinite terms."

well, there ya go..........a monarchy of "justice."
execute them, and elect a new bench, for a term of six years, and see if they can deliver up some justice to the American people, instead of procuring regal rights for their former employers. a real SCOTUS would balance the other branches, instead of joining in the coup.

I guess

wasn't a real *POTUS

 

[Padawanbater2]

Pad, you're about as revolutionary as Andy Griffith. your "revolution" is framed within a Matrix. it makes you feel like you're "doing something;" you're not.........................

How old are you?

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

I guess

wasn't a real *POTUS

NO! it was not. I lay no blame upon O, for the state of this nation. I'm no Republican....lol. that's the same as being a Democrat. no thank you. you may think your faction is different, but it suckles from the same beast as the Red chariot team.

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

How old are you?

POIGNANT!!!!

right into the Lib bag-o-tricks.....lol.

"when confronted with strong argument, commit ad hominem, or find a way to invalidate the arguer."

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

how old are YOU? what's your favorite color? your zodiac, favorite food..........just kidding. I don't care. I was discussing the state of justice, on the "Federal" level.

 

[Padawanbater2]

how old are YOU? what's your favorite color? your zodiac, favorite food..........just kidding. I don't care. I was discussing the state of justice, on the "Federal" level.

Your antiquated opinions give it away anyway, and your Andy Griffith reference supports it. You know who references Andy Griffith? My dad, you know what generation he's from? The most selfish, self obsessed, take all give nothing generation American has ever birthed; Baby Boomers.

You had your chance partna, get used to the sideline

 

[Red1966]

I'd support that.

Our "supreme court" is a fucking joke....just like the rest of our "government".

Ruth Bader Cuntstein and Dikey Sotomayor have been about as impartial as a Klan member would be concerning blacks.

Ruth Bader-Ginsburg never even practiced law at all. Never argued a case as a lawyer, never was a judge. A fucking CLERK who went directly to appointment to the highest court in the nation. Dems are clamoring for her to retire, or drop dead, so Obama can appoint her successor, because they don't expect the next pres to be as liberal and she's unlikely to survive another 6 years.

 

[Red1966]

Indeed, that sounds entirely crazy. Insane, in fact.

I want people extremely well versed interpreting the law. I understand the underlying principle, though. I've always been a fan of a multidisciplinary approach. But they gotta be lawyers first and foremost.

There is no legal requirement for a federal judge to have a law degree. We have federal judges still drawing salary while serving time in prison.

 

[Red1966]

Those justices who are lawyers can serve to write the law. The others can help them decide how they apply it to facts.

As it stands, the clerks, who are fresh graduates of law school write the opinions now.

Look at abortion law in terms of how the court has ruled on it. It requires much more understanding of medical science than legal science to both write and interpret that law.

Law isn't terribly difficult to practice. We have a glut of lawyers. That's why new lawyers may take $12/hour paralegal jobs with their fresh JD.

New MD's don't have the same issue.

It's why we have socialized practice care for people in the need of legal services, but not medical.

And the socialized legal care is designed as welfare to lawyers.

One of the major problems with the court is judges writing law. Law is to be written by representatives of the people, not the courts.

 

[schuylaar]

UncleBuck, nice contributions to the thread. I see you have no valid nor intelligent reply to the utter lack of substantive diversity in the high court.

This is going to sound crazy, but I don't think the bench needs to be limited to lawyers only.

They decide on many things which are outside of the expertise of law.

There should be a couple of scientists, two elite business professionals, and maybe 4 lawyers and one member of clergy.

But yes, all people from the north east, all catholic except for 3 jews is pathetically unrepresentative of America.

*schuylaar backs away from thread..

 

[Red1966]

Your antiquated opinions give it away anyway, and your Andy Griffith reference supports it. You know who references Andy Griffith? My dad, you know what generation he's from? The most selfish, self obsessed, take all give nothing generation American has ever birthed; Baby Boomers.

You had your chance partna, get used to the sideline

Yes, it's about time we allow the young, inexperienced, and politically brainwashed take the reins. The demise of America is at hand. Long live the ascendency of the new superpower, Mother Russia. Or maybe radical Islam.

 

[schuylaar]

Ruth Bader-Ginsburg never even practiced law at all. Never argued a case as a lawyer, never was a judge. A fucking CLERK who went directly to appointment to the highest court in the nation. Dems are clamoring for her to retire, or drop dead, so Obama can appoint her successor, because they don't expect the next pres to be as liberal and she's unlikely to survive another 6 years.

fail lazy ass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg

EDIT: what is it with you and jews?..i thought you were jewish?

 

[Red1966]

fail lazy ass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg

EDIT: what is it with you and jews?..i thought you were jewish?

I stand corrected, she argued 4 actions in her entire career. Once again, your citation lends more support to your opponent's statements than your own. Do you even read them before you post them? Trying to pretend I am anti-Semitic is typical of your dishonesty. My father was born a Jew, but did not practice it. My mother was not a Jew. So, not a Jew. Not a member of any religion, for that matter. Strongly anti-Islamic, tho.