shawnbm
Multiple Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2013
- Messages
- 3,573
- Reactions
- 1,257
- Points
- 113
There was talk about packing the court during Roosevelt's era and at other times as well. People are always wanting to tinker with the Supreme Court of the United States of America and these ideas float around now and then, but get shot down eventually when people think on this. I think lifetime appointment is the way to go.Two limited to two terms or 18 years is asking for even more politicization of the highest court. Then it will be, seesaw back and forth on various issues and the weight some justices are by their very nature, you will have more and more decisions that will if set people like the recent decision that role as back to abortion being a states right issue rather than something that can be imposed by the High Court of the land by reading the right to abortion into the Constitution under the alleged penumbra of an implicit rather than express, right to privacy under the United States Constitution. Lord knows that decision because a lot of chaos and now we are back to where it was before. If all the states decide they want to put the right to abortion into their constitutions and laws, then so be it.
Life expectancy is not that drastically different than it was in the 1800s, perhaps another 10 years or so, but that is not the point. As the Constitution currently reads, this is the way it is. I have no problem with people doing all sorts of things, including inserting into the Federal Constitution a right to privacy explicitly. But the Constitution was meant to be difficult to amend and requires that an overwhelming majority of people voting in the respective states, thereby making it an overwhelming majority of states, have to agree that this major document should be amended in some significant way. What the United States Constitution never envisioned were activist Justices who would read into and read beyond what is in the United States Constitution to craft things that they personally want or to reflect the political winds of the day. That is the issue. I live in a state where there are amendments proposed every single election going back to case. Thankfully, nowhere near the number of constitutional amendments brought up have been approved, but, to my way of thinking, far too many of them still have passed. That being said, this is our system and this is how we live with it. The citizenry of a certain political bent seem loathe to go out and try to amend the Federal Constitution to reflect various positions. Instead, they prefer to have certain justices barred from being on the court and propose a litmus test on certain key issues so they can hope a group of them will do their bidding by reading things into the document. This was not the case 60 years ago, or at least not to the extent it eventually became in the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s. As long as someone had a decent judicial background for they came from academia, they sailed through the nomination process until we had Sen. Kennedy his baloney with Bork. We have brought this on ourselves unfortunately.
Life expectancy is not that drastically different than it was in the 1800s, perhaps another 10 years or so, but that is not the point. As the Constitution currently reads, this is the way it is. I have no problem with people doing all sorts of things, including inserting into the Federal Constitution a right to privacy explicitly. But the Constitution was meant to be difficult to amend and requires that an overwhelming majority of people voting in the respective states, thereby making it an overwhelming majority of states, have to agree that this major document should be amended in some significant way. What the United States Constitution never envisioned were activist Justices who would read into and read beyond what is in the United States Constitution to craft things that they personally want or to reflect the political winds of the day. That is the issue. I live in a state where there are amendments proposed every single election going back to case. Thankfully, nowhere near the number of constitutional amendments brought up have been approved, but, to my way of thinking, far too many of them still have passed. That being said, this is our system and this is how we live with it. The citizenry of a certain political bent seem loathe to go out and try to amend the Federal Constitution to reflect various positions. Instead, they prefer to have certain justices barred from being on the court and propose a litmus test on certain key issues so they can hope a group of them will do their bidding by reading things into the document. This was not the case 60 years ago, or at least not to the extent it eventually became in the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s. As long as someone had a decent judicial background for they came from academia, they sailed through the nomination process until we had Sen. Kennedy his baloney with Bork. We have brought this on ourselves unfortunately.
