I’m starting to think this issue is that important as well. I’ve said for a long time that I’d vote for any candidate regardless of party if they ran on dissolving the electoral college. This is one of those areas that is so complex and has so many ramifications that I’d much prefer the decision to be made by experts rather than Joe-down-the-pub, but what do you do when you can’t trust the experts?) There is very little more important than how the law is interpreted. (Honestly I think this is a horrible solution but I’m not sure asking candidates ‘are you impartial?’ is a better one. ![]() If that’s going to be the case going forward then there need to be controls placed on the justices just as there is for the president. ![]() The reality is that the Supreme Court of the land is influenced by politics AGAINST the original intent. Does ANYONE think that this is true now? Anyone? I’m not interested in when it started happening, or who did what first. The Supreme Court were originally lifetime appointments (I think) to ensure that the justices didn’t need to get embroiled in partisan politics - They could be impartial without fear in their interpretation of the constitution. Anything that happens after that you can deal with. Once you decide that you're landing out your single priority is landing safely. If a low experience jumper has been told that there are preferred outs then they may make a low turn or fly over hazards just to try and reach one of those. You have a mal and get your reserve out low. so I'll just make it over that barn to the one where the owner is a friend of the DZ.' then you're much more likely to make a bad decision. If at the back of your mind you've got a little voice saying 'I CAN land in this field but the owner is going to be cross. Imagine these situations: By landing out you're already putting yourself in a more dangerous situation than normal. Once you have that information picking where you're going to land is up to you based on exactly where you are in the sky. A Dropzone will point out hazardous landing areas - lakes, shooting ranges, freeways etc, and tell you 'DON'T LAND THERE' but shouldn't ever bring the disposition of the land owner into the discussion unless they pose a direct hazard themselves. It's to worry more because it becomes a political arm without any oversight or accountability. Once the supreme court becomes a political entity the solution isn't to worry less about 1 replacement every 10 years. The SC goes back to being what it was originally intended to be. If you can remove the politics from the selection then I have no problem with lifetime term limits. That's why I suggested the chief justices should be picked anonymously by their peers rather than by the government. If he had been a political placement the way we're doing it now the amount of damage he could have done would be incalculable. John Marshall served 34 years as a chief justice. But there shouldn't be any relation between politics and the SC all - that's the point. I wouldn't be worried at all with that turnover IF the judges were selected regardless of their political leanings, but they're not, and that makes the Supreme Court a political institution as much as a legal one. There's a lag and association with current political leanings. ![]() Given the current state then you're right. What I AM concerned with is the SC nomination being more entwined with the 4-year cycle of popular/fad politics. I'm not concerned with that kind of turnover. On average there's one replacement about every 5-10 years. The Supreme Court is always going to lag a bit in the Conservative vs. If you can't get rid of one, get rid of the other. ![]() The appointments are already political AND have no time limit. But it WOULD limit the damage they could do in the long term.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |