Snyder v. Phelps Decided

[Formaldehyde]

Not having it hostage to the elected branches would work.

In Gran Colombia Simon Bolivar proposed that the judges be hereditary to keep them apolitical.

I think a better idea would be to allot the posts at random to the most senior judges.

That would be a terrible idea. Deciding who gets to be a judge is an incredibly political process. They either run for office or they are appointed by someone who ran for office. As a result, some of them are incompetent and many are barely competent. I certainly don't want my rights victimized by such a group on a random basis.

Recreational marijuana users are doing something illegal. Probably the key difference with regards to being dehumanised. The illegality is probably largely what causes the dehumanisation.

It really had nothing to do with promoting illegal drug use. It was more of practical joke at the expense of the authoritarian principal which this particular student had a running dispute than anything else.

I think BH4J was one of the worst SC decisions ever handed down. It clearly shows how dangerous the current Supremes really are. Deliberately appointing reactionary authoritarians to the Supremes was a horrible idea. It also shows complete failure of the courts at district and circuit levels. But this took place in Alaska, one of the most lopsided and backward red states in the union.

While I agree that high school students do not have many First Amendment rights while attending school for what I think should be obvious reasons, they clearly do when they have never been to school that day and are not even on school property.

 

[Tani Coyote]

That would be a terrible idea. Deciding who gets to be a judge is an incredibly political process. They either run for office or they are appointed by someone who ran for office. As a result, some of them are incompetent and many are barely competent. I certainly don't want my rights victimized by such a group on a random basis.

Is having it hostage to politics really any better?

All the methods of choosing judges sound terrible.

You can be skilled or apolitical, but it sounds like it's impossible to be both.

 

[GhostWriter16]

It is unfortunate that there isn't some sort of automatic impeachment mechanism that kicks in for Supremes when they dissent 8-1 on such obvious decisions.

Supreme Court Votes 8-1 AGAINST Illegal Stripsearch of teen. Guess who was the ‘ 1′?


Supreme Court strikes down animal cruelty law


Supreme Court rejects petition secrecy of anti-gay ballot initiative

Horrible idea. I would be far more likely to support a rule that caused unanimous decisions to result in mistrials, like in Jewish courts. Discouraging dissent only encourages group think, making it difficult for individuals to think independently, speak their mind and bring up valid points for consideration.

I think impeaching a judge simply because he voted against 8 Supreme Judges is idiotic.

That said, I don't think that's what Formaldehyde meant. I think he meant idiotic judges who vote against the 8 should be able to be kicked off. To which I'd be OK with, but who decides?

In Formaldehyde's cases, in the first one, the guy deserved impeachment, the second one the dissenter was clearly wrong but I don't think its enough for impeachment, the third one seems debatable to me (Though I don't know much about it.)

 

[Formaldehyde]

Is having it hostage to politics really any better?

Unless you are suggesting that all judges be selected randomly from all the attorneys who have ever passed the Bar, it will always be political. The only viable way to assure that the Supremes aren't complete jokes is to have confirmation hearings as we now do. But that still leaves the entire process open to politics.

I think the important aspect is to have some mechanism to more easily remove the ones that clearly show from their decisions that they unqualified. That is what is really missing. The impeachment process was not designed to remove incompetents. Of course, this applies just as well to the presidency...

You can be skilled or apolitical, but it sounds like it's impossible to be both.

I don't think that is true at all. But I do think it is important to not appoint or elect extremists of either side to the most important positions in the country, especially authoritarian ones. They are obviously going to be the worst individuals to be put in a position to protect our liberties and our rights.

 

[Tani Coyote]

That's just it. Unless you are suggesting that all judges be selected randomly from all the attorneys who have ever passed the Bar, it will always be political.

Well the sortition would obviously be qualified - x amount of years as a judge, and likely a member of a lower Supreme Court at that.

But I think the important aspect is to have some mechanism to remove the ones that clearly show from their decisions that they should have been appointed in the first place. That is what is really missing. The impeachment process was not designed to remove incompetents.

While they say the Constitution should change with the times, making impeachment and removal easier will ensure it changes with each election cycle.

I don't think that is true at all. But I do think it is important to not appoint or elect extremists of either side to the most important positions in the country, especially authoritarian ones. They are obviously going to be the worst individuals to be put in a position to protect our liberties and our rights.

We could always do it German style and have the branch split so half is elected one way and the other in another, for balance purposes. Why make an entire branch hostage to one constituency?

 

[Rashiminos]

I can understand Alito's position, even though I know the First Amendment and its corresponding precedent do not endorse it. Suffice it to say, we really do not approach "emotional attacks" with a degree of rationalism adequate to the task, and therefore attempting to argue for doing so (through law) is foolish at this time. That being said, I do not think Alito should be up for impeachment merely because of one man's definition of what the obvious result should have been.

 

[warpus]

Hey, so what would happen if you got a bunch of people together, came to a residential neighbourhood at 3am and started protesting something or other with loudspeakers, banners, and so on?

The cops would show you and tell you that what you're doing is illegal, right?

There are limits to free speech.

 

[GhostWriter16]

That would be up to that neighborhood now wouldn't it?

That said, there is clearly a difference between that.

 

[SuperJay]

That would be up to that neighborhood now wouldn't it?

Uh... no? Where the heck did you get the idea that individual neighborhoods decide how laws are applied or how the Constitution is interpreted?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Well the sortition would obviously be qualified - x amount of years as a judge, and likely a member of a lower Supreme Court at that.

It still means that you are randomly selecting from a group of people. You could end up with 9 Clarence Thomases, or even far worse.

While they say the Constitution should change with the times, making impeachment and removal easier will ensure it changes with each election cycle.

I'm not suggesting it become a popularity contest as you insinuated. The House would still need to impeach the president or the Supreme on charges of incompetence and the Senate would still have to try him and find him guilty.

I can understand Alito's position, even though I know the First Amendment and its corresponding precedent do not endorse it. Suffice it to say, we really do not approach "emotional attacks" with a degree of rationalism adequate to the task, and therefore attempting to argue for doing so (through law) is foolish at this time. That being said, I do not think Alito should be up for impeachment merely because of one man's definition of what the obvious result should have been.

The thing is that Allioto seems to frequently find himself in this loner group due to his authoritarian reactionary views.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Uh... no? Where the heck did you get the idea that individual neighborhoods decide how laws are applied or how the Constitution is interpreted?

Hey, so what would happen if you got a bunch of people together, came to a residential neighbourhood at 3am and started protesting something or other with loudspeakers, banners, and so on?

When I think "Residential Neighborhood" I'm thinking a gated community or some such with its own rules.

 

[civ_king]

Alito could be saying how several judges feel, having it 8-1 leaves little doubt how the court decided

 

[GhostWriter16]

Alito is saying how he feels, and him alone. The other 8 judges were against the ruling Alito wanted.

 

[Tani Coyote]

It still means that you are randomly selecting from a group of people. You could end up with 9 Clarence Thomases, or even far worse.

Dividing the SCOTUS so it doesn't have to be entirely random or appointed could alleviate this.

I'm not suggesting it become a popularity contest as you insinuated. The House would still need to impeach the president or the Supreme on charges of incompetence and the Senate would still have to try him and find him guilty.

The current two-thirds system makes it so it's nigh-impossible to impeach/remove officials barring extreme abuse. If we made it say, simple majority, then each election cycle would easily give the chambers of Congress supreme power provided one party controlled both.

"Impeach x" would no longer be fringe talk. It would be midterm talk.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Alito is saying how he feels, and him alone. The other 8 judges were against the ruling Alito wanted.

Yes. Leave Britney alone!

The current two-thirds system makes it so it's nigh-impossible to impeach/remove officials barring extreme abuse. If we made it say, simple majority, then each election cycle would easily give the chambers of Congress supreme power provided one party controlled both.

Once again, I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I just think we need to add incompetence and clearly demonstrated extremist views as valid criteria to impeach.

 

[Rashiminos]

The thing is that Allioto seems to frequently find himself in this loner group due to his authoritarian reactionary views.

Not everything has the same source Forma.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Once again, I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I just think we need to add incompetence and clearly demonstrated extremist views as valid criteria to impeach.

Well in that case, I see no issue then. Should be an offense as much as abuse of power in theory.

Unfortunately, it will always be hostage to one group or another to reason what "extremism" or "incompetence" is. It's easy to choose in some cases(executing homosexuals for instance, is fairly extreme in just about anyone's book) but defining the line where extreme becomes mainstream would be very messy.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Not everything has the same source Forma.

Can you imagine what the conservatives would be saying if Obama had appointed an authoritarian soclalist to the Supremes? What's the difference?

Well in that case, I see no issue then. Should be an offense as much as abuse of power in theory.

Exactly. It could have also been used to remove GWB from power during his second term.

 

[Rashiminos]

Can you imagine what the conservatives would be saying if Obama had appointed an authoritarian soclalist to the Supremes? What's the difference?

There are trolls among the people, too.

 

[Moss]

Hey, so what would happen if you got a bunch of people together, came to a residential neighbourhood at 3am and started protesting something or other with loudspeakers, banners, and so on?

The cops would show you and tell you that what you're doing is illegal, right?

There are limits to free speech.

Right. The Court decision does not prohibit local laws restricting where someone can protest (other Court precedent covers that). For example, Arizona passed a law recently so that the Phelps group wouldn't be allowed to protest at the funeral of the little girl that was killed in the Tuscon shooting. That's still Constitutional.

What it does do is state that if protesters are following the law (which Phelps was), you cannot bring a tort claim against them for protesting what they believe.