MennoNet.com

temporal1 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 1:21 pm Objecting to, disagreeing with, are to be expected, do not compare with attempting to wholly dismantle/reconfigure, esp by way of low-information mob mentality. Pelosi suggesting term limits for SCOTUS is “good for belly laughs.”

Members of the House of Representatives serve 2-year terms and have to be re-elected (re-appointed) by the voters every 2 years.

How often do the public get to re-examine a SCOTUS appointment?

Ken wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 2:07 pm

temporal1 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 1:21 pm Objecting to, disagreeing with, are to be expected, do not compare with attempting to wholly dismantle/reconfigure, esp by way of low-information mob mentality. Pelosi suggesting term limits for SCOTUS is “good for belly laughs.”

Members of the House of Representatives serve 2-year terms and have to be re-elected (re-appointed) by the voters every 2 years.

How often do the public get to re-examine a SCOTUS appointment?

They're not supposed to.

HondurasKeiser wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 2:10 pm They're not supposed to.

Indirectly, through POTUS+Congress. Correct?

temporal1 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 2:18 pm

HondurasKeiser wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 2:10 pm They're not supposed to.

Indirectly, through POTUS+Congress. Correct?

It’s a lifetime appointment. Once they’re confirmed , there’s no mechanism to hold justices accountable or remove them.

Ken wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 12:46 pm

Josh wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 8:56 am Interesting point of view, Ken. Would you agree that Roe vs Wade exceeded the Court’s constitutional authority, as did Wickard, Brown vs Board of Ed., and Comstock?

In all of those cases the plaintiffs clearly had standing and so those cases were all properly before the court.

In Brown v. Board of Education, for example, the Brown family and 12 other black families sued the Topeka School Board for prohibiting their children from attending their local school paid for by their tax dollars and forcing them to bus their children to a black school much further away. That is clear standing. They were suffering a very real injury and 14th Amendment violation.

The court's refusal to take up the companion case to this one seems to put the lie to the idea that the Court was engaging in judicial activism and simply looking for any way possible to strike down Biden's absurd pretension to debt cancellation.

Szdfan wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 2:28 pm

temporal1 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 2:18 pm

HondurasKeiser wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 2:10 pm They're not supposed to.

Indirectly, through POTUS+Congress. Correct?

It’s a lifetime appointment. Once they’re confirmed , there’s no mechanism to hold justices accountable or remove them.

Except impeachment.

HondurasKeiser wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 2:10 pm

Ken wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 2:07 pm

temporal1 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 1:21 pm Objecting to, disagreeing with, are to be expected, do not compare with attempting to wholly dismantle/reconfigure, esp by way of low-information mob mentality. Pelosi suggesting term limits for SCOTUS is “good for belly laughs.”

Members of the House of Representatives serve 2-year terms and have to be re-elected (re-appointed) by the voters every 2 years.

How often do the public get to re-examine a SCOTUS appointment?

They're not supposed to.

Lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court and lower courts is not actually found anywhere in the Constitution. For that matter, neither is the size of the Supreme Court at 9 members.

In fact, the US is the only western Democracy that has lifetime appointments for judges. Just to cite some examples:

In the United Kingdom, Supreme Court Justices are selected by a non-partisan judicial commission which is required by law to base their selections on merit only. The commission forwards the name to the Lord Chancellor, Prime Minister and King. They cannot substitute an alternative choice but can only reject the choice and send it back to the Commission for reconsideration. Once appointed by the King, all British judges (not just the Supreme Court) have a mandatory retirement age of 75 (it was age 70 until a few years ago). There are no lifetime judicial appointments in the UK.

In France, Supreme Court justices serve single 9-year terms.

In Germany, all justices serve a single 12 year term and have mandatory retirement at age 68.

No western Democratic country other than the US has both lifetime appointments and no mandatory retirement age.

HondurasKeiser wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 2:38 pm

Szdfan wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 2:28 pm

temporal1 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 2:18 pm Indirectly, through POTUS+Congress. Correct?

It’s a lifetime appointment. Once they’re confirmed , there’s no mechanism to hold justices accountable or remove them.

Except impeachment.

Has a Justice ever been impeached? There’s been resignations due to scandals.

HondurasKeiser wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 2:38 pm

Ken wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 12:46 pm

Josh wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 8:56 am Interesting point of view, Ken. Would you agree that Roe vs Wade exceeded the Court’s constitutional authority, as did Wickard, Brown vs Board of Ed., and Comstock?

In all of those cases the plaintiffs clearly had standing and so those cases were all properly before the court.

In Brown v. Board of Education, for example, the Brown family and 12 other black families sued the Topeka School Board for prohibiting their children from attending their local school paid for by their tax dollars and forcing them to bus their children to a black school much further away. That is clear standing. They were suffering a very real injury and 14th Amendment violation.

The court's refusal to take up the companion case to this one seems to put the lie to the idea that the Court was engaging in judicial activism and simply looking for any way possible to strike down Biden's absurd pretension to debt cancellation.

The Supreme Court only hears about 70 cases each year out of the 7,000+ appeals that it gets. So it only choses to hear about 1 out of every 100 cases and which cases it chooses to hear is obviously a very political process.

Szdfan wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 2:28 pm

temporal1 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 2:18 pm

HondurasKeiser wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 2:10 pm They're not supposed to.

Indirectly, through POTUS+Congress. Correct?

It’s a lifetime appointment. Once they’re confirmed , there’s no mechanism to hold justices accountable or remove them.

Samuel Chase (1804) was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate, so theoretically at least it's possible to remove them from office.