This Is Bullshit

WTF, when did that come up? He simply said that the Constitution confers a lifetime appointment on federal judges. That's a fact. Maybe it needs to be changed. That's why we have the amendment process. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The question is how do "we the people" get an amendment process started to change something like this?

Honestly unless people really are affected by it directly (in their lives) most probably will be apathetic to trying to change it. I could be wrong however... as time goes by maybe people will realize these types of things should never be set up like this where the ones appointed do not have to answer to anyone.

Actually, recusal of judges is not controlled by the Constitution in any event, but by Congress. The general recusal statute is 28 U.S.C. § 455:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/28/I/21/455

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/28/I/21/455

See also 28 U.S.C. §§47, 144.

OK, TTH, where do we go if they refuse to recuse themselves? Do we sue them?

WTF, when did that come up? He simply said that the Constitution confers a lifetime appointment on federal judges. That's a fact. Maybe it needs to be changed. That's why we have the amendment process. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

We had a vetting process.

Why should judges have to worry about popular opinion?

Why have judges at all if all we are going to do is vote their ass out if we do not like their rulings?

The system may not be perfect but it is a helluva lot better than WTF you are proposing.

The lynch Mob mentality would rule the day.

These are some pretty smart cookies up there , even if I do not agree with four of them very much

WTF, when did that come up? He simply said that the Constitution confers a lifetime appointment on federal judges. That's a fact. Maybe it needs to be changed. That's why we have the amendment process. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

This is the only other way We the People can overturn a SCOTUS decision through an an amendment to the Constitution.

Personally, I'm appalled how we have allowed the legislative branch to be marginalized and our laws to be subverted by the judicial system through case law and agencies through administrative law. I guess it's what happens when the government gets too big.

I guess it's what happens when the government gets too big. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

It is what happens when there are differing opinions in different appellate courts. Really has nothing to do with big government.

It is what happens when there are differing opinions in different appellate courts. Really has nothing to do with big government. Originally Posted by WTF

If you read the whole of my comment, I spoke of administrative law as well as case / appellate law. Many of the "laws" we live by are really administrative rulings based on the interpretation of a law passed by any given legislature. I would imagine that in turn a great many of these administrative "laws" and concepts that are disseminated throughout the citizenry are what gets challenged in court.

Further, it is my understanding that if in the 5th Circuit a ruling goes one way and if in the 3rd Circuit a ruling goes another way, the law in question is interpreted differently in each Circuit unless it is appealed to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court decides to hear it and then makes a ruling.

We had a vetting process.

Why should judges have to worry about popular opinion?

Why have judges at all if all we are going to do is vote their ass out if we do not like their rulings?

The system may not be perfect but it is a helluva lot better than WTF you are proposing.

The lynch Mob mentality would rule the day.

These are some pretty smart cookies up there , even if I do not agree with four of them very much Originally Posted by WTF

WTF, you are truly a moron. I haven't proposed anything. You are listening to the voices in your head. I think you may present a danger to yourself and/or others. You are arguing with yourself, and losing.

WTF, when did that come up? He simply said that the Constitution confers a lifetime appointment on federal judges. That's a fact. Maybe it needs to be changed. That's why we have the amendment process. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

WTF, you are truly a moron. I haven't proposed anything. You are listening to the voices in your head. I think you may present a danger to yourself and/or others. You are arguing with yourself, and losing.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Maybe you need to take an 8th grade Civics Class.

Not that I have proposed you do so.

I have only run across one poster with more double speak than you.

Are there any more big government proposals you'd like to make to get government smaller?

Yes , if enough folks decided to change the Constitution, they could. I just think it stupid in this regard.

If you read the whole of my comment, I spoke of administrative law as well as case / appellate law. Many of the "laws" we live by are really administrative rulings based on the interpretation of a law passed by any given legislature. I would imagine that in turn a great many of these administrative "laws" and concepts that are disseminated throughout the citizenry are what gets challenged in court.

Further, it is my understanding that if in the 5th Circuit a ruling goes one way and if in the 3rd Circuit a ruling goes another way, the law in question is interpreted differently in each Circuit unless it is appealed to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court decides to hear it and then makes a ruling. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

All I addressed was the fact that none of this had anything to do with your so called big government theory.

This is the only other way We the People can overturn a SCOTUS decision through an an amendment to the Constitution.

Personally, I'm appalled how we have allowed the legislative branch to be marginalized and our laws to be subverted by the judicial system through case law and agencies through administrative law. I guess it's what happens when the government gets too big. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

WTF. Truly off the wall.

All I addressed was the fact that none of this had anything to do with your so called big government theory. Originally Posted by WTF

Our governments (federal, state, municipal) have gotten so big that management by the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch has become impossible. Instead what we did was create agencies which in turn created labyrinths of bureaucrats that created even still more complicated labyrinths of administrative law that are enforced by the bureaucrats charged by said agencies to govern us. Think EPA, OSHA, FDA, BLM, Railroad Commission and Homeland Security that fine companies and enforce mandates that are “interpretations” of the laws. Social services agencies that through their interpretation of law decide who gets what entitlement funds such as Health and Human Services, whatever department that administrates Medicade/Medicare, etc. Now add in the scary, enforcement agencies such as DEA, FBI, IRS, CIA and Homeland Security to the interpretation equation. Yeah! These agencies are what govern us not the blueprint set out by the Founding Fathers. That’s what I meant when I said this:

……………..Personally, I'm appalled how we have allowed the legislative branch to be marginalized and our laws to be subverted by the judicial system through case law and agencies through administrative law. I guess it's what happens when the government gets too big. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Well, just ignore WTF, he isn't making any sense. He obviously snuck into the nurse's station and used their computer while the staff was tending to a patient who was having a manic episode.

I wasn't proposing anything when I said that Justices "should" recuse themselves in certain cases. I know full well they don't have to. The idea is (was) that federal judges and justices needed to be above politics. It was anticipated by our Founders that the SC would be staffed by men and women of high scholarship and integrity. It ain't that way, folks.

If I were to propose anything to remedy this, I would propose repealing the 17th amendment. The Senate was intended to represent the interests of the several state governments; to act as a roadblock on federal control of the states. While the process has always been political to a degree, what we have now are senators confirming people based on what will be best for their donors. The Court should be a bastion of legal scholarship and high ethical standards. Now it's become probably the most political branch of government. Justices are selected on the basis their ideology, rather than expertise. Is Elaina Kagan really the most qualified person in the country to sin on the Court? Of course not, but she is an insurance policy for the President on Obamacare.

If we had state governments selecting the senators, the make up of the Court would be substantially different. The senators would be beholding to their state, not their donors. Therefore the confirmation of federal judges would be less political, and we might have a few more scholars on there, and fewer political hacks.

Well, just ignore WTF, he isn't making any sense. He obviously snuck into the nurse's station and used their computer while the staff was tending to a patient who was having a manic episode.

I wasn't proposing anything when I said that Justices "should" recuse themselves in certain cases. I know full well they don't have to. The idea is (was) that federal judges and justices needed to be above politics. It was anticipated by our Founders that the SC would be staffed by men and women of high scholarship and integrity. It ain't that way, folks.

If I were to propose anything to remedy this, I would propose repealing the 17th amendment. The Senate was intended to represent the interests of the several state governments; to act as a roadblock on federal control of the states. While the process has always been political to a degree, what we have now are senators confirming people based on what will be best for their donors. The Court should be a bastion of legal scholarship and high ethical standards. Now it's become probably the most political branch of government. Justices are selected on the basis their ideology, rather than expertise. Is Elaina Kagan really the most qualified person in the country to sin on the Court? Of course not, but she is an insurance policy for the President on Obamacare.

If we had state governments selecting the senators, the make up of the Court would be substantially different. The senators would be beholding to their state, not their donors. Therefore the confirmation of federal judges would be less political, and we might have a few more scholars on there, and fewer political hacks.



Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You are about as naive as they come , everything is political. The founding fathers were no better than people today. They set things up to their advantage. That was human nature then , it is human nature now and it will be human nature in the future.

This is how a capitalist society works. Markets implode, societies implode. That is how it has always been and that is how it will always be. The smart people in any society adapt to the rules and make money regardless. The rich ones buy influence. If you are not rich enough to buy influence , start adapting and quit your bitching.

You act like we are all 8th graders and not wise to the ways of the world.

You talk about how it should be and I talk about how it really is.

You are a dreamer, maybe the fifth Beatle!

Our governments (federal, state, municipal) have gotten so big that management by the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch has become impossible. Instead what we did was create agencies which in turn created labyrinths of bureaucrats that created even still more complicated labyrinths of administrative law that are enforced by the bureaucrats charged by said agencies to govern us. Think EPA, OSHA, FDA, BLM, Railroad Commission and Homeland Security that fine companies and enforce mandates that are “interpretations” of the laws. Social services agencies that through their interpretation of law decide who gets what entitlement funds such as Health and Human Services, whatever department that administrates Medicade/Medicare, etc. Now add in the scary, enforcement agencies such as DEA, FBI, IRS, CIA and Homeland Security to the interpretation equation. Yeah! These agencies are what govern us not the blueprint set out by the Founding Fathers. That’s what I meant when I said this: Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Well our laws are not subverted by the courts. They have always been interpreted by the courts. If you disagree with a court decision I suppose you could cry that the courts have subverted laws. Some folks still think Plessy vs Fergurson should be law instead of Brown vs Board of Education.
I personally think the courts get it right moreso than congress. They are not so much ruled by mob mentality. I think that is how the founders wanted it but I could be wrong, I wasn't there like CuteOldGuy!

But congress created all these agencies , not the courts.

Maybe all we are discussing is what came first, the chicken or the egg.