Ethnic Vagina Finder
The Great Paper Chaser
The outcomes of elections shouldn't affect how the supreme court is structured. The supreme court should not reak political ideologies. The selection process needs to change.
The supreme court shouldn't consist of conservative or liberal minded justices
- Thread starter Ethnic Vagina Finder
- Start date
How do you elect a judicial spot, with ideologies not coming into play?
President? Nope
Congress? Nope
The people? Nope
Draw names out of a hat? Who draws the name? What color is the hat?
Ethnic Vagina Finder
The Great Paper Chaser
Judges submit their names and would be vetted. The president would still pick but it would come from a pool of judges based on strict critera so no matter what president be it left or right, the type of judge would still be the same. Most judges vote along political ideologies. This would eliminate that.
Vetted by who?
Who's creating this criteria?
If I'm a Republican I'm recommending the judge that wrote a law review article in favor of Roe V. Wade.
And you say judges submit their names, there's gonna be a huge number of lawyers going for this spot, who's vetting all these people?
Ethnic Vagina Finder
The Great Paper Chaser
a non political organization can vet. believe it or not out of the 300 + million people that live in this country, a lot of them don't give a shyt about being a repub, dem, blue red conservative or republican. Lawyers can't apply only judges and they have to have served for at least 10 years.
Fillerguy
Veteran
What like who, Teach for America?
What protects said org. from being bought out?
Is this org still non political after it vets our Supreme Court judges?
If so, can we still use this org. the next go around orshould we find a one?
Ethnic Vagina Finder
The Great Paper Chaser
there are incredibly smart people in this country that don't care about politics and don't care about money but who are financially secure, intellectual and honest. It can be done.
When judges are described as liberal or conservative it's not really to map them to a party but to show their doctrinal stance
Supreme Court cases by nature are matters of interpretation, you go to the supreme court when two lower courts disagree
This thread can't really work unless you pick particular court cases and explain what "non conservative/liberal" stances would conclude in the case of that judgement
There has been one court case recently that's been definitely political though: Bush v. Gore. One of the affirming opinions even said it's not meant to be a generally applicable ruling! A disgrace upon the court.
Supreme Court cases by nature are matters of interpretation, you go to the supreme court when two lower courts disagree
This thread can't really work unless you pick particular court cases and explain what "non conservative/liberal" stances would conclude in the case of that judgement
There has been one court case recently that's been definitely political though: Bush v. Gore. One of the affirming opinions even said it's not meant to be a generally applicable ruling! A disgrace upon the court.
Well, it's also random when a Supreme Court justice steps down. So, it's a roll of the dice if a President gets to pick a new justice or not. Kind of like my Russian Roulette or Press Your Luck threads. It's all random. You win some. You lose some.
No. Supreme Courts cases are almost entirely based on politics which is why attorneys can never predict how a case will turn out. I thought the way you did before law school, and then got there and realized that even after learning the different interpretative schemas, they are a means to an end. Justices will abandon their interpretative stances depending on which end result they want to bring about. You don't need to pick any court cases. Just think about the political ramifications of a decision, and who will consider them, and who won't and you can almost entirely discern how the court will vote. That doesn't mean they aren't all brilliant and that they won't make convincing arguments, but it's more like they decide on an end result and then work backwards to justify it.
I've seen back to back cases on similar subject matter where the courts will decide it differently despite using the same sort of analysis because they want a different result. The scenario OP envisions is impossible precisely because individuals take their biases with them. You would have to create specific ruling standards, which Congress will never agree upon.
