Thanksgiving 1789

[LionPride]

Lemmy wrote:
Perhaps we should look at ammending the constitution to have federal judges not be appointing to lifetime terms.

Just the liberal ones :lol:

[LionPride]

[quote="southpaw";p="76235"]Something has to be done about the arrogance of Judges. Maybe some sort of Congressional oversight committee that reviews judges conduct annually.[/quote]

Southpaw - I'm disappointed in you.

Think about the politics behind a committee like that. To find enough elected officials to be non-partisan enough to be effective would be impossible. And it's just promoting government to be bigger. And look at the current judicial review committee. If they did their job in the first place instead of playing politics, we wouldn't have overzealous judges.

I agree, something has to be done to review judges conduct. I just don't think another congressional committee is the answer. But I'd have to think long and hard on a good solution.......

[southpaw]

The committee would be made up of members of congress just like we already have committees set up to oversee certain parts of the gov't.

I see no other solution short of eliminating judges and lawyers all together!

[Lemmy]

Upon further review....


Federal Judges do not serve lifetime terms. They serve as long as they show "good behavior". Art. III, Sec. 1 Impeachment is how judges are removed from office. Sorry for any confusion in my earlier post.

Impeachment was used whenever judges disregarded public interests, affronted the will of the people, or introduced arbitrary power by seizing the role of policy-maker. Previous generations used this tool far more frequently than today's generation; and because the grounds for impeachment were deliberately kept broad, articles of impeachment have described everything from drunkenness and profanity to judicial high-handedness and bribery as reasons for removal from the bench. (Sixty-one federal judges or Supreme Court Justices have been investigated for impeachment, of whom thirteen have been impeached and seven convicted.)

We must keep our three branches of government seperate.

[southpaw]

Policy making as impeachble! Don't hold your breath or most the 6th circuit court would be going to trial.

[voncap]

A question I have is how do you determine the difference between liberal and conservative. From my point of view too many times moral and immoral get confused with liberal and conservative. In moral issues it is easy to determine who is conservative and who is liberal, but what if an individual is in favor of less government (a fundamental conservative philosophy) but is willing to change the US Constitution (an extremely liberal idea) to accomplish this goal. Is that person liberal or conservative?

Who has allowed the courts/ government to develop this absolute power? The answer is very simple: We have. When your neighbor puts a fence on your property where do we go to resolve the matter, the courts. When the local farmer spreads manure on the fields around your home and the nitrates seep into your well where do we go, the government. When parents seperate who usually decides the fate of the children, the courts.

This power has become so absolute it has allowed the courts and the government to ignore the principle rule that democracy is founded on 'Majority Rules'. 'Majority Rules' is a principle that has long ago been abandoned. I have seen local official be elected by as little as 10% of the people's support. Even in the recent Presidential election, which had a tremendous turnout, Mr. Bush was elected with only support of 35% of the people (70% turnout with him getting approximately 52% of the votes). It is tough to determine what is the majority's stance in this case.

Somehow the American public needs to find a way to bring 'Majority Rules' back into the equation with the US Constitution. We also need to find a way to understand that the decisions of the majority as not necessarily right or wrong but as the accepted way.

[southpaw]

Good points cap. Good to hear your side on this issue. I had a poly-sci prof in college tell us in class that one of the best things about the modern US democracy was that "Majority Rules" wasn't the norm anymore. His point was that the courts had to be strengthened to protect civil liberities and minority rights. He was also a communist.

[LionPride]

[quote="southpaw";p="76268"]He was also a communist.[/quote]

:lol:

Aren't most professors?

[once a runner]

Majority rules isn't always a good idea. Can you imagine how often laws would change? Right now we're in a conservative cycle so the majority rule idea sounds great to the conservatives. At some point the cyle will turn back to the liberals. Will the majority rules idea look so good then? Is it really a good thing for laws to go back and forth depending on the political climate of the time?

Here is an example that is already in some states and isn't too far away in PA. A community, by virtue of their vote in a general election, must ok a property tax hike. What will that do to public schools? They're essentially saying that the officials they elected are not capable of making the decisions of what is best for both the school and the community. Can you see communities ever votiing for a property tax hike? Meanwhile schools will be cutting programs, staff and activities. What kind of education will that lead to? The majority rules idea is not always best.

One further point.....There are obviously some judges out there who are simple too far "out there". However, the system is set up so that one judge does not final authority. There is an appeals process where verdicts can be overturned.

[El-Moldo]

I don't think that the public EVER votes for anything to do with property taxes for school districts, do they? Maybe they can ok a MUNICIPAL property tax hike by vote, but not a SCHOOL property tax hike.