Quantcast

Should Supreme Court Justices have LIFETIME Appointments??!!

BlueRepublican 2012/06/26 15:06:55
You!
Add Photos & Videos
The Supreme Court is making the news again with rulings on controversial issues like upholding the Arizona SB1070 law, the upholdment of the Citizens United ruling against Montana, and the upcoming ACA (Obamacare) constitutionality ruling.

In the midst of all this, I have to pose this question...Should the Justices of the SCOTUS have lifetime appointments? I mean really, no limits whatsoever with an avg salary of over $200,000+ annually. Some Justices have been there for over 25 YEARS!!

Let's put it this way. ALL the Justices are either overdue for retirement or eligible for early retirement. I mean, some Justices actually had to DIE out in order to leave the Supreme Court!

The President only gets 2 4-year terms regardless of party or popularity.
Public service was intended to be just that, a service to the people. I don't believe it was supposed to be a career of lifelong taxpayer dependency.

So let me know what you think? Should there be some limits on some these corrupt activist judges? Do they deserve LIFETIME appointments? Go ahead and vote right now, comment, reply, share with all your friends and RAVE all DAY!!!!

supreme court justices 2012
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2012/06/26 19:34:32
    NO
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +5
    I've seen Justices of the Supreme Court hang on when they're senile. William O. Douglas springs to mind.

    In New Jersey, any Justice must step down when he turns seventy.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Magnus ☮ RP ☮ 2012 ☮ 2012/06/26 16:35:56 (edited)
    Undecided
    Magnus ☮ RP ☮ 2012 ☮
    Article 3, Section 1: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior."

    I don't exactly see how that constitutes 'lifetime' appointment, however one thing is clear that their appointment is on CONDITION OF good behavior. Which, IMO, is saying their appointment shall stand IF they rule in favor of the Constitution (first and foremost - especially Citizen's Rights), then the Federal Legislature (second), and then State's Rights (third, except in cases dealing with Federal Legislature violating Constitutional Law, and thereby State's Rights etc). Period.

    And while I realize why there aren't elected Judges, I for one see it as being a very fine line and because a lifetime appointment carries the same outcome (or so it is today) of them simply not giving a crap about making sound judgement because no matter what they do (especially considering that our own federal government and Executive Branch are in entire contempt of the Constitution as it is), that nothing will happen to them... as well as we have just seen from both 0bama with his backdoor Amnesty, and now the SCOTUS ruling on AZ SB1070 (gutting it, and now also having 0bama ordering ICE to not even pick up the phone if the call is coming from AZ, therefore preventing them fro...





    Article 3, Section 1: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior."

    I don't exactly see how that constitutes 'lifetime' appointment, however one thing is clear that their appointment is on CONDITION OF good behavior. Which, IMO, is saying their appointment shall stand IF they rule in favor of the Constitution (first and foremost - especially Citizen's Rights), then the Federal Legislature (second), and then State's Rights (third, except in cases dealing with Federal Legislature violating Constitutional Law, and thereby State's Rights etc). Period.

    And while I realize why there aren't elected Judges, I for one see it as being a very fine line and because a lifetime appointment carries the same outcome (or so it is today) of them simply not giving a crap about making sound judgement because no matter what they do (especially considering that our own federal government and Executive Branch are in entire contempt of the Constitution as it is), that nothing will happen to them... as well as we have just seen from both 0bama with his backdoor Amnesty, and now the SCOTUS ruling on AZ SB1070 (gutting it, and now also having 0bama ordering ICE to not even pick up the phone if the call is coming from AZ, therefore preventing them from taking any actions against the Foreign National Alien INVASION (and which, per Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution the Federal Government is CONSTITUTIONALLY OBLIGATED to remedy, irregardless of what their laws say and because the CONSTITUTION is ABOVE the Federal and State Legislature, period).

    So this is not simply a 'yes' or 'no' answer here. The problem lies with Congress, it is THEIR responsibility to ensure Constitutionality over the SCOTUS. And they are not. It is similarly the job of POTUS to ensure the Constitutionality of the Congress - none truly have for the last over a hundred years now. And it is OUR responsibility to ensure that ALL of them adhere to the Constitution, and raise hell if they don't - and we have not.

    The blame for the state of this Nation, rests with us and our apathy to fight for our Constitution, our Rights and our very Liberty itself. Not simply the SCOTUS, Congress, or POTUS - but ourselves, also.

    Until we do, nothing is going to change.
    (more)
  • aneed2know Magnus ... 2012/06/27 06:58:40
    aneed2know
    where are you getting this information, please site source
  • Magnus ... aneed2know 2012/06/27 16:36:15
    Magnus ☮ RP ☮ 2012 ☮
    The Constitution... it's pretty straight-forward.
  • aneed2know Magnus ... 2012/06/28 04:20:44 (edited)
    aneed2know
    like i said site your source and are you a constitutional scholar, or some idiot Ron Paul supporter, which one?

    Edited: Magnus the stalwart Ron Paul supporting idiot has decided to block me, cant defend his position or his statement so he blocks because i called him a idiot , but i am willing to bet this idiot has called non-Ron Paul supporters far worse names. I think i will look for a few and post them here. As i said i would i have found just one and there are more of this idiot Ron Paul supporter calling people names, he can dish it out, but cant take. Magnus you are a joke and its no wonder that you are unemployed, your too dumb to hold down a job.

    http://www.sodahead.com/unite...
  • Magnus ... aneed2know 2012/06/28 04:27:01 (edited)
    Magnus ☮ RP ☮ 2012 ☮
    Both, which is more than you can say. And because you'd rather resort to name-calling without causation, I am exercising my right of Freedom of Association by blocking you. Good riddance.
  • Lady Whitewolf 2012/06/26 16:25:14
    NO
    Lady Whitewolf
    +3
    JUST NO.
  • beavith1 2012/06/26 16:15:00
    Undecided
    beavith1
    +4
    when you turn the court into a system of political appointment, you have to be careful that the Court wouldn't blow with the political breeze.

    FDR tried to pack the Court. can you imagine the level of appointee that Obama would fill it with? Sotomayor is a lightweight.
  • Sissy beavith1 2012/06/27 00:12:14
    Sissy
    +1
    The republican presidents in recent history haven't done a bad job of "packing the courts" in their own right.
  • beavith1 Sissy 2012/06/28 19:58:10
    beavith1
    its not packing if any president replaces a member with a different member as they retire.

    FDR threatened them with forced retirement and/or adding numbers. its funny. SCOTUS after that found all his initiatives 'constitutional'.

    i wonder if Obama and the democrats veiled threats against the SCOTUS had anything to do with today's decision?
  • Rebel Yell 2012/06/26 15:44:09
    NO
    Rebel Yell
    +4
    Justice Scalia uses original intent as a political weapon, not as an interpretative tool. Big problem. Justice Scalia’s judicial sin is that he would give the meaning of the Constitution and our laws over to whatever majority he supports, rather than protect the rights of individuals.

    Scalia is a brilliant man but a man who is working backwards from a conclusion. It’s not just the gaps in logic or small hops over inconvenient issues — just the general sense that he KNOWS what he wants the outcome to be, and is clever enough to make a compelling argument to get there. Anyone who disagrees with him is "twisting the text."

    Perhaps we would trust Justice Scalia in his “interpretive quest for Constitutional meaning” better, if he did not play with those who would diminish the Court’s influence. Quit hunting with Cheney and going to weekend retreats with the Koch Bros.

    This is the justice who gave us George Bush. Enough said about his " true intent".
  • Artist~PWCM~ 2012/06/26 15:39:38
    YES
    Artist~PWCM~
    +2
    Justices change their color all the time but that doesn't mean they always follow the appointments by their sponsor. I get tickled every time a liberal judge goes against the grain like in this recent case over the Arizona law...obama is surely ticked off! And of course they're going to deep-six his obamacare on Thursday. That's going to hurt, lol!

    But occasionally we have the Supreme Court write law, which they're not supposed to do as in the case of Roe v. Wade.
    Ah well, they are subject to the political winds as are the rest of us. I'd rather not have judges turned over every few years just for political reasons or party affiliation. Besides, this is one group that has time to grow into their job. Granted there are some like Elena Kagan who has no experience as a judge and is in place purely to support obamanation. She has no business being a Supreme Court Justice!
  • ehrhornp 2012/06/26 15:30:06
    YES
    ehrhornp
    Although the judges should be impeached more regularly if they do not follow basic ethics and standards that lower judges are subject to and are showing signs of aging. Scalia probably should be stepping down. His last opinion where no one else signed on indicates that he might be losing it.

    Frankly I think term limits on presidents are un necessary.
  • MJ 2012/06/26 15:26:36
  • BlueRepublican 2012/06/26 15:20:39
    NO
    BlueRepublican
    +3
    Ooops, I almost forgot....
    KEEP TAX REFORM ALIVE!!!
    herman cain
  • FAWKES'... BlueRep... 2012/06/26 17:27:55
    FAWKES' NOOSE ~ ΔTX
    +2
    I hear he has a new plan which will be revealed as soon as the new SIMS game is released.
  • BlueRep... FAWKES'... 2012/06/26 20:35:02
    BlueRepublican
    That made me LOL!!
  • kir 2012/06/26 15:17:57
    YES
    kir
    +3
    The idea of lifetime appointments for justices is to prevent pandering to a voter base. If we're unhappy with the direction the Supreme Court is moving then we need to change the direction of the Presidential elections.
  • FAWKES' NOOSE ~ ΔTX 2012/06/26 15:16:56
    NO
    FAWKES' NOOSE ~ ΔTX
    +1
    TWO YEARS MAXIMUM
  • Lady Wh... FAWKES'... 2012/06/26 16:26:18
    Lady Whitewolf
    2 terms of 4 years, just like the president.
  • Headhunter 13 2012/06/26 15:08:49
    NO
    Headhunter 13
    +5
    No one deserves a lifetime appointment.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/28 12:29:04

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals