Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 68

Thread: Ka Boom II

  1. #1
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: troutmd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    22,021

    Ka Boom II

    America is the only country whose supreme judges are appointed for life. In Europe, high court judges have terms of 6 to 12 years, or face mandatory retirements at 65, 70 or 75. (In Canada, it is 75.) In the U.S., 47 of the 50 states have terms of 6 to 14 years for their highest judges, while in Massachusetts and New Hampshire judges must retire at 70. Only Rhode Island gives life tenure to its supreme court judges.

    Are you for changes to the SCOTUS or believe nothing is needed nor possible to reform the institution?
    I am 100% convinced the internet and social media are not the salvation to human civility.

  2. #2
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,966
    I am for changine the SCOTUS and have been for a while. I would be good with having them have terms of 10-14 years and top it off have them staggered so it set up that in every 2 years we replace one of the judges.

    The other and honestly easier change to do would be to expand the SCOTUS to 30 judges. It would be match the appellate courts. This means any case the SCOTUS here the judges are randomly chosen so even if the court was say 70% conservative and 30% liberal you never really know what type or court you can get and you can get a very stack court for that ruling if all liberal judges are chosen.
    This expansion also would let them hear more cases, and would not make replacing a judge so scary as that judge will not be on every case and you never know when you will get them.

    The 2nd option can be done with out doing anything to the constitution as no where does it state how the court is setup other than judges for life. Also it used to be judges were old when they were put on the court so they did not last more than 10 years any how.

  3. #3
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: love4himies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    5,368
    Agree, there should be a mandatory retirement age.
    While we are free to choose our actions, we are not free to choose the consequences of our actions. - Stephen R. Covey.

  4. #4
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Wookiebiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    5,596
    I'm not sure there should be a lifetime appointment for any governmental service position. The current set up gives WAY too much power to the Judicial side of the check-and-balances in our government.
    Bikes:
    • 2017 Giant TCR Advanced Disc
    • 2017 Fuji Norcom Straight 2.1

  5. #5
    What the what???
    Reputation: Opus51569's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    9,151
    I don't disagree with most of these ideas. But at this moment in history, I think it's a non-starter simply because any change would be perceived (and perhaps rightly so) as being politically motivated.
    The Law of Headwinds states: If the ride out is easy... wait.

  6. #6
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    501
    Quote Originally Posted by love4himies View Post
    Agree, there should be a mandatory retirement age.
    I'm torn on this. While I don't want to see senile judges falling asleep during court, I don't know if age should be "the" determining factor. Lots of people are still sharp as a whip at 80, while others are semi-comatose at 65. I'm not sure what the right procedure should be for determining when someone shouldn't be in the court.
    Anytime someone starts telling you what their political opponent "really believes", that's a pretty good indication that they are about to dive into a straw man argument.

  7. #7
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: love4himies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    5,368
    Absolutely. If the mind starts deteriorating before mandatory retirement age then there should be a mechanism to retire the judge.
    While we are free to choose our actions, we are not free to choose the consequences of our actions. - Stephen R. Covey.

  8. #8
    tlg
    tlg is online now
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: tlg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    12,585
    Quote Originally Posted by davesupra View Post
    I'm torn on this. While I don't want to see senile judges falling asleep during court, I don't know if age should be "the" determining factor. Lots of people are still sharp as a whip at 80, while others are semi-comatose at 65. I'm not sure what the right procedure should be for determining when someone shouldn't be in the court.
    Agree. Age is too arbitrary. 12yrs (3 presidential terms) would be a good time frame. Same should apply to congress.
    Custom Di2 & Garmin/GoPro mounts 2013 SuperSix EVO Hi-MOD Team * 2004 Klein Aura V

  9. #9
    Ricardo Cabeza
    Reputation: Andy69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    17,795

    Ka Boom II

    Term limits are ok only as long as I disagree with their opinions.

    Once they are all aligned with my personal beliefs, we can go back to lifetime appointments.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence - John Locke

    SuperAndy's Garage

  10. #10
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    68,574
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy69 View Post
    Term limits are ok only as long as I disagree with their opinions.

    Once they are all aligned with my personal beliefs, we can go back to lifetime appointments.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Oh no! you've switched sides and are now a liberal.

  11. #11
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    895
    Hell has frozen over. I agree with Timeless. At least on the expansion issue.

    For those proposing term limits or age limits, does that resolve the issue that the appointment process has become such a partisan battle. Significant expansion which makes it very hard to swing the overall balance between conservative and liberal seems to be the best option.

    Also as pointed out it can be accomplished with out a constitutional amendment

  12. #12
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,966
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy69 View Post
    Term limits are ok only as long as I disagree with their opinions.

    Once they are all aligned with my personal beliefs, we can go back to lifetime appointments.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    So basically gop appoint ones.



    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

  13. #13
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,966
    Quote Originally Posted by Herbie View Post
    Hell has frozen over. I agree with Timeless. At least on the expansion issue.

    For those proposing term limits or age limits, does that resolve the issue that the appointment process has become such a partisan battle. Significant expansion which makes it very hard to swing the overall balance between conservative and liberal seems to be the best option.

    Also as pointed out it can be accomplished with out a constitutional amendment
    Top it off by having a larger court size it also healthier for the judges as they will not feel as motivated to hang on and retire when someone of a different party is in power. Instead they know they are one among many. Sadly I don't see the expansion every being allowed to happen.

    In doing the expansion it should be done over 16-20 years. This prevents the court from starting off badly stack as it is a slower processes and we will go through multiple Senate's and presidents. If one steps down during the process they get replaced us the expansion slot is added as well. It should be done for the long term health of the courts.

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

  14. #14
    Welcome to the jungle
    Reputation: SystemShock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    31,902
    Quote Originally Posted by Snakebit View Post
    Oh no! you've switched sides and are now a liberal.
    Andrew ain’t cool enough to be a liberal... and I think you pre-date all political ideology entirely.
    Monkhouse: I want to go like my Dad did – peacefully, in his sleep, not screaming in terror like his passengers.

    System: Fake news?? Trump's a Fake President, for God's sake.

    Plat: I'd rather fellate a syphilitic goat than own a Cervelo.

    Homer: I believe that children are our future. Unless we stop them now.

    Seam: Saw Bjork poop onstage back in the day. It blew my teenage mind


  15. #15
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Akirasho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,913
    SCROTUS

    Supreme Republican Court Of The United States

    Interestingly enuff, both the Judges and the Constitution are perceived as immutable.

    We are taught to believe that The Court is the end all with it's ruling and many in power depend on our apparent societal super polarization on issues to maintain this.

  16. #16
    Ricardo Cabeza
    Reputation: Andy69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    17,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Snakebit View Post
    Oh no! you've switched sides and are now a liberal.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence - John Locke

    SuperAndy's Garage

  17. #17
    xxl
    xxl is offline
    Moderator
    Reputation: xxl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    33,260
    Speaking of ka-booms, this was over in the Lounge:

    Can't BELIEVE this didn't happen in Florida.

    When boofing goes bad.
    More Americans wanted Hillary Clinton to be President than wanted Donald Trump.

    Donald Trump has never had a wife he didn't cheat on.

  18. #18
    Cleavage Of The Tetons
    Reputation: rideit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by xxl View Post
    Speaking of ka-booms, this was over in the Lounge:

    Can't BELIEVE this didn't happen in Florida.

    When boofing goes bad.
    Whoever posted that over there is a SICKO

  19. #19
    Adorable Furry Hombre
    Reputation: Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    26,504
    Quote Originally Posted by Wookiebiker View Post
    I'm not sure there should be a lifetime appointment for any governmental service position. The current set up gives WAY too much power to the Judicial side of the check-and-balances in our government.
    ..Interesting thesis--how?

    The judiciary has zero power to enforce anything it rules. As exampled by say, Worcester vs. Georgia...or as another example-the courts telling Trump he cannot fly-by-night separate migrant families (which they still are)
    "Refreshingly Unconcerned With The Vulgar Exigencies Of Veracity "

  20. #20
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: troutmd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    22,021
    Quote Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    Agree. Age is too arbitrary. 12yrs (3 presidential terms) would be a good time frame. Same should apply to congress.
    Both sides have polarized the nomination process and will do everything to stack the court in their favor. Spreading the process over a proscribed 12 to 18 year process disarmed these partisan zealots.

  21. #21
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    68,574
    Quote Originally Posted by troutmd View Post
    America is the only country whose supreme judges are appointed for life. In Europe, high court judges have terms of 6 to 12 years, or face mandatory retirements at 65, 70 or 75. (In Canada, it is 75.) In the U.S., 47 of the 50 states have terms of 6 to 14 years for their highest judges, while in Massachusetts and New Hampshire judges must retire at 70. Only Rhode Island gives life tenure to its supreme court judges.

    Are you for changes to the SCOTUS or believe nothing is needed nor possible to reform the institution?
    The institution doesn't need reform and we are not Europe because a long time ago we chose not to be. There was a mighty king whose party controlled the national Congress and when his people from a different political persuasion complained they were being bulldozed he uttered the imortal answer, "Elections have consequences." the unhappy people listened and plotted and planned and sure enough, the King was right.

    What we need is to blend our differences in Congress rather than working for total domination. Ideologies have consequences too.

  22. #22
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Wookiebiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    5,596
    Quote Originally Posted by Snakebit View Post
    What we need is to blend our differences in Congress rather than working for total domination. Ideologies have consequences too.
    As long as those differences benefit you and not liberals … I'm guessing you are all for it.

    Ideologies do have consequences and they generally manifest themselves in the form of elections.

    With the idea of "Fixing" things and "Blending" or differences in congress … What areas of your ideology are you willing to compromise to blend the differences? One or two things? Meet in the middle? Nothing? … Just curious since you brought it up.
    Bikes:
    • 2017 Giant TCR Advanced Disc
    • 2017 Fuji Norcom Straight 2.1

  23. #23
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    68,574
    Quote Originally Posted by Wookiebiker View Post
    As long as those differences benefit you and not liberals … I'm guessing you are all for it.

    Ideologies do have consequences and they generally manifest themselves in the form of elections.

    With the idea of "Fixing" things and "Blending" or differences in congress … What areas of your ideology are you willing to compromise to blend the differences? One or two things? Meet in the middle? Nothing? … Just curious since you brought it up.
    The people have always held hardened positions, it has been up to the Legislature to do the blending. We need to elect smarter people who can actually build friendships and bridges across the chasm that has become American politics. Men and women who will find a way to ease the tension.

  24. #24
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Wookiebiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    5,596
    Quote Originally Posted by Snakebit View Post
    The people have always held hardened positions, it has been up to the Legislature to do the blending. We need to elect smarter people who can actually build friendships and bridges across the chasm that has become American politics. Men and women who will find a way to ease the tension.
    The problem with this is … "It's not my guy, it's your guy!"

    People continue to vote the same people into positions of power, or move further to their side to create more divisiveness. It's about getting what "You" want, not what's best for the country at this point.

    I see it in Oklahoma where I used to live. People are absolutely "Pissed" as the legislature over their educational system. However … they will not vote the politicians that put them in that position out of office for the simple reason they have an "R" next to their name on the ballot.

    People don't care what a politicians policies are, what they are going to push for, whom they are going to defend … they just care whether there in a "R" or a "D" next to their name.
    Bikes:
    • 2017 Giant TCR Advanced Disc
    • 2017 Fuji Norcom Straight 2.1

  25. #25
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    68,574
    Quote Originally Posted by Wookiebiker View Post
    The problem with this is … "It's not my guy, it's your guy!"

    People continue to vote the same people into positions of power, or move further to their side to create more divisiveness. It's about getting what "You" want, not what's best for the country at this point.

    I see it in Oklahoma where I used to live. People are absolutely "Pissed" as the legislature over their educational system. However … they will not vote the politicians that put them in that position out of office for the simple reason they have an "R" next to their name on the ballot.

    People don't care what a politicians policies are, what they are going to push for, whom they are going to defend … they just care whether there in a "R" or a "D" next to their name.
    Oklahoma is a rural State and they will vote accordingly. It is difficult to make major changes in a local school system because of all the fed regulations and forced compliance. Those hurdles are there whether there is an R of D by a legislator's name.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. A licky boom boom down...
    By Sylint in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 12-21-2009, 12:38 PM
  2. Boo Boom Bang Boom
    By Charlie2Ba in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-18-2009, 07:31 PM
  3. Boom goes boom
    By the mayor in forum Cyclocross
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 01-03-2009, 10:46 AM
  4. Ka-Boom Boom Boonen!
    By philippec in forum Pro Cycling - Tour de France
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-06-2006, 01:01 PM
  5. Boom!!!! Us Postal Bust This Race To Bits
    By bimini in forum Pro Cycling - Tour de France
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 07-07-2004, 03:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

roadbikereview.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.