ILikePie5

My point about that was that they got removed. Are you saying our nation worked because we disenfranchised most of the population?

Well at least that way the court is representative, and I’ll remind you that my system doesn’t actually change this.

The average justice only stays on the bench for 16 years, so just because they have the option to stay on for longer doesn’t mean that they will.

In short, it already evens  out so that on average, four president get to appoint 8/9 of the court. This is no new info.

You know, the president ends up appointing on average 2.14 justices per term. You made this whole point about how the current system is more separate because the president doesn’t appoint justices as much, but clearly this is just not true.

If you count stability as having less appointments, then this is much more stable. 

This proposed amendment has everything you want, less appointments, fairness, and a more separate court, and you still oppose it. Why? I really hope it’s not just partisan politics.

Been waiting since Obama was in office. Only time it actually happened is when Trump was in. Guess I'll keep waiting...

The constitution was also designed to not enfranchise anyone but rich, white, male, landowners.

No, I want the same amount for everyone. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

How? Also it’s 2 appointments.

yeah, but we can can control when they have to resign. Now you’re starting to get it.

The whole point of that is that separation of power is the same either way. My way just makes it fair and as separate as possible.

How can you possibly claim the court is separate when Trump can influence 1/3 of the court during his term?

Four president have not made any appointments, and three of them were removed from office early. Willian Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Andrew Johnson, and Jimmy Carter. 

No, it just averages it out. So far we have some president who have more separation from the court, and other presidents that are hyper connected to the court.

No it’s not, because that’s an average. There is a element of randomness that I’m just trying to flatten out.

I have a few problems with that.

For one, remember that there was only one president who completed a full term and didn’t appoint anybody, so your argument doesn’t work on that grounds. There will almost always be some appointments per prez.

The only thing this system enables is some presidents that are less connected to the court and some that are extremely connected to the court. All this amendment would do is smooth out the randomness. The court is already connected to the executive branch whether you like it or not, and this amendment won’t make that more so, it will make it more fair in its connectedness.

The choice is between a court that is sometimes less connected and sometimes way more connected, but always connected, and a court that is always equally a little connected.

Ya, and under the current policy, some presidents are more spectated, and others are less separated, but it balances out, so not munch really changes. Like I said, I get your point about the separation, but this could be fixed with just longer term limits. Say we double it and make it 36 years. Then every president has less impact, but the same impact. 

I absolutely agree with you,  but I’m saying that it  might be possible to have both separation, and fairness.

What do you mean barely changed anything? The original system was so bad that Arron Burr accidentally became the VP! It created the whole system of running mates which is much better.

I’m not against separation of power, I’m trying to keep the separation and make the system much more fair.

Also, how can you say we have good separation now when one president affected 1/3 of the court over the course of one term?

I’m just trying to even put the appointments, not make them more frequent.

Also, the average justice stays on the bench for only 16 years! This wouldn’t even stop that many people from going over the term limit.

But only one side has the trampolines at a time. You’ve basically admitted that it’s not fair at this point, so why can’t we balance the scales a little?

Well Kamala might be separated, it Trump sure wasn’t.

Many founders also supported slavery, and created many bad systems.

Just look at the original electoral college. It was so horrible that it got ditched in just over a decade.

They included the amendment system so we could correct their mistakes. That was their best idea, knowing that they weren’t perfect. Saying that something is perfect because the founders made it is a false appeal to authority.

But it should be

How is my system enabling the court to be controlled by the prez? If anything, this system makes that much harder to do.

I haven’t heard any real reasons why this is t a good system yet, just some buzzwords about how the founders wanted it.

There are so many other good reasons why America is a world super power, but how we elect our justices is absolutely not one of them.  Something so trivial as our court system can’t have contributed much. It’s a false correlation.

Apples are red, and apples are a popular fruit. Therefore, apples are popular because they are red.

 

False correlation.

I wasn’t complaining about the fact electoral college, I was just showing the difference between his support and the influence he had. This can all be prevented with term limits.

The senate only has the power to not approve a justice based on grounds of being corrupt or unfit for the job. They can’t block someone  just because they don’t agree with their views.

I don’t have a problem losing a basketball game, I have a problem losing a basketball game when the other team used trampolines.

Well why can’t there be both? Small states aren’t going to be leaving the union just because we remove the EC anymore. The time of the fragile, barely a nation has past, so we can remove the archaic laws from that time.

Slavery was left out of the constitution to appease the southern states, but we eventually got rid of it, because it wasn’t needed anymore.

Well then it’s a bad constitutional. Since you’re basically admitting that this system isn’t fair, why can’t we make it fair?

Trump was elected by 46% of the people and the proceeded to change 1/3 of one of the most powerful bodies in our country. That’s not representative.

Yeah, but 1/3 of them are appointed by Trump, and it’s still not fair that he gets more than some other president.  

The whole point of a republic is that our leaders should represent our interest. When some sides can gain more artificial influence than others, then the Public is misrepresented.

He'll be fine, just a few more rallies talking about when Kamala decided to be black and Hannibal lector and those moderates will come flooding in.

Anyways, the gist as I understand it from those quotes was that if the justices are life time appointees, then the court will be free of tampering from the other branches.  

The problem is that the opposite is actually happening. Clearly it is being tamper with because of life term limits. 

Like I said, I’m open to longer term limits, you have a great point about that, the problem is the randomness of presidential appointments.

I would love to if you told me exactly where it was. There’s 85 of them, and you know how long Hamilton likes to write.

Well the “precedent” of Roe v Wade just got completely abolished. Besides, justices will end up changing anyways. I’m open to much longer term limits, that would solve the problem, but it just needs to be something uniform.

That is why you will lose, we do know who Trump is, and the more we learn, the more the opposition grows. The more desperate he gets, the more damage he will inflict on his campaign, his campaign will be self-immolating for the next three months, he'll have his base frothing at the mouth, but it will be the sour grapes anger of losers, again.

The more known the Trump entity is, the more people will vote Kamala. 

First of all, why is the system even designed so some presidents get multiple? Why cant we make it better?

Second, the reason I wasn’t complaining when Truman or Ike got a bunch was because I wasn’t alive. It sometimes takes an instance of the system working badly to make you realize that it’s a bad system, but that doesn’t change that fact that it’s a bad system. It’s a logical fallacy to say my argument is invalid because I didn’t make this argument before.

Okay, it’s not an abuse of power, I overreacted, but it’s still not a good thing that some president end up with more appointees than others.

how so? Kamala is about to be president. I haven't heard anything about Tulsi in quite some time. Her political career is probably over. All she can do now is be trotted out on right wing news shows occasionally before going back into obscurity. 

lol this is just sad. A woman laughs. My god!! she's so weird. But you think trump talking about electrifying sharks and bring up the "great hanibal lector" is totally normal. 

I suppose that’s fair. I’m not mad about the rulings tho, I mad about Trump abusing his power and appointing 3 justices. I didn’t think this was really possible until he did it, so I saw no reason to safeguard against it. Now that we know it is a problem though, we should do something about it.

What’s the gist of what Madison had to say against term limits? That it would politicize justices more?

This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.''2 And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.

There is yet a further and a weightier reason for the permanency of the judicial offices, which is deducible from the nature of the qualifications they require. It has been frequently remarked, with great propriety, that a voluminous code of laws is one of the inconveniences necessarily connected with the advantages of a free government. To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them. Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges. And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge. These considerations apprise us, that the government can have no great option between fit character; and that a temporary duration in office, which would naturally discourage such characters from quitting a lucrative line of practice to accept a seat on the bench, would have a tendency to throw the administration of justice into hands less able, and less well qualified, to conduct it with utility and dignity. In the present circumstances of this country, and in those in which it is likely to be for a long time to come, the disadvantages on this score would be greater than they may at first sight appear; but it must be confessed, that they are far inferior to those which present themselves under the other aspects of the subject.

Don't know much about her tbh but she seems perfectly respectable at a glance. A possible return to normalcy for the US. Unless the incels and other weirdos have their way again.

Ya, you read the Federalist Papers, um no. No you did not.