24 May 16
Originally posted by vivifyDo you really believe that?
The reason Supreme Court judges aren't electable in the first place is to prevent corruption, and remove politics from their decisions. So in answer to your question, no.
If so, maybe Congressmen should be appointed as well.
24 May 16
Originally posted by whodeyThat's all we need, the Supreme Court being an elected position. We got enough problems with the garbage the general population elects to political office, they don't need to have a hand in screwing up the judiciary by popular vote. Probably put Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton on the bench.
With the recent stunt of Trump coming out with SCOTUS picks, something struck me. Why not elect them instead?
For all of you supposed democracy lovers out there, why not?
24 May 16
Originally posted by FishHead111A hater of democracy?
That's all we need, the Supreme Court being an elected position. We got enough problems with the garbage the general population elects to political office, they don't need to have a hand in screwing up the judiciary by popular vote. Probably put Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton on the bench.
Say it ain't so! :'(
24 May 16
Originally posted by whodeyAn interesting idea.
With the recent stunt of Trump coming out with SCOTUS picks, something struck me. Why not elect them instead?
For all of you supposed democracy lovers out there, why not?
Would they still serve for life or would you proposed fixed terms of office?
24 May 16
Originally posted by no1marauderMaybe we should ask your bureaucratically appointed regulators what is best since they are the only ones interested in the public welfare.
An interesting idea.
Would they still serve for life or would you proposed fixed terms of office?
Originally posted by whodeyYou started the discussion; so stop being an obnoxious idiot and answer the question. You can go look at some right wing websites that will tell you what to think for a while if you can't answer the question by using your own reasoning powers.
Maybe we should ask your bureaucratically appointed regulators what is best since they are the only ones interested in the public welfare.
25 May 16
Originally posted by FishHead111For today's voter, there is no such aversion.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
----Winston Churchill.
All concerns the Founding Fathers had for direct democracy seem to have been tuned out.
25 May 16
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy would they serve for life?
You started the discussion; so stop being an obnoxious idiot and answer the question. You can go look at some right wing websites that will tell you what to think for a while if you can't answer the question by using your own reasoning powers.
I thought the idea of being elected meant that those elected would seek to be elected again, thus seeking to continue to represent those who put them there.