US Constitution, Article III, Section 1
The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior
In other words, as long as they live until they are impeached, resign, or are carried out feet first. If it weren’t in the Constitution, someone would have changed it long ago.
Your opinion to the contrary, ignorance is not a virtue.
Yale law professor Abbe Gluck, who flagged the 2012 dissent in August, said it’s important because it validates a core argument of the Obamacare administration.
Did the president change his last name to Obamacare?
The SCOTUS, pretty much by design and definitely with the current make up, isn’t responsive to the opinion of the American people. Their decisions are supposed to be entirely about matters of law and not about who or what is up in the polls. Having the administration attack them in the press would make no impression upon the Justices (except maybe to piss them off, which really doesn’t help), and open the administration up to criticism…probably from the right and left.
And lets face it…most Americans are clueless about the rulings of the SCOTUS.
During local elections when we elect judges, aside from voting for Democratic governors who appoint non-hack judges and voting to retain those judges, I vote against any judge who is a “conservative” or usually more accurately a “constitutionalist” or “originalist.” I do what I can to keep these people from getting far enough to get to the conservative judge factory to produce nakedly Republican judges and Supreme Court justices.
That’s actually…a very bad idea. Yes, we don’t get the rulings we want today, but introducing political pressure into the mix would only exasperate that issue. Its argurable, for example, that the same sex marriage bans being shot down across the country would be happening at anywhere near this pace, if at all, if every judge was worried about whether or not they will have a job given that the GOP just took control of Congress.
Not to mention the increased workload of reconfirming hundreds of Justices would make the current holes we have open even bigger. The GOP just won the Senate…in your scenario they would have a handful or more of judges they would be dismissing right away on nothing but pure partisanship.
Lifetime appointments definitely have a down side. But term limits and/or bringing them back in for reconfirmation introduces a political element into the mix, which is contra to the intentions of the Constitution.
Scalia will likely dissent on his own dissent and create the world’s first and most dreaded, double dissent.
The conservative judges are making it up as they go and their conservative credentials are the only thing that is consistent about them.
Even in the face of this, I believe that President Obama and his team will find a way to work around the blindside of conservatism. In fact, they have to as a matter of course.
I believe your comment was meant for Matthew1961 since he’s the one who referred to the ad hominem argument as a fallacy and then only generally, i.e., not always. I was only concerned with the definition of argumentum ad hominem and did not discuss its fallaciousness at all since whether it is a fallacy or not depends entirely on how it is used. So you’re not refuting anything I said because I never said anything about it.
As far as rods and staffs are concerned, Matt 7:3-4 and Luke 6:42-42 apply
Those first two sentences are exactly what right-wingers used to say about Earl Warren and William Brennan and the Court when liberals were in the majority.
Just saying’ . . .
Scalia ( and his LapLab) will accuse them of plagiarism…
Judicial elections are an abomination. In every state that has them, the Kochtopus Empire is pumping millions and millions of dollars into them trying to buy the state courts. Here in NC, the Kochtopus proconsul and legislature abolished the state’s “clean elections” public financing scheme for judicial elections, eliminated all limits on campaign contributions in judicial races and tried to stack the deck in our “nonpartisan” judicial races with a law that required that candidates of the governor’s party be listed first on the ballot at the same time they passed the most gawdawful voter suppression law in the nation.
It matters because of Roberts. What this does is point out how completely full of shit the conservatives who want to rule against it are. Scalia, Thomas, and Aliso don’t care because they’re absolutely shameless, but Roberts doesn’t like to have his bullshit aired publicly.
The thing with this that is the most annoying, other than the potential loss of coverage, is that the lawyers trying to tare the subsidize down just come off like slime in everything I see.
It sounds like they are playing a sporting event and talking trash more than it is any scholarly debate over a matter. And that is really annoying. I see Scalia using his standard excuse and go against it, despite the fact that really legal scholars look to be on the side of the government in this based on the wording and the law as a whole. The only ones against it seem to be state reps that are pretty conservative and so on.
This should have never made it this far to be totally honest.
Jonathon Adler and Michael Cannon, the fucking evil asshole lawyers behind this frivolous but destructive suit…man, I’d love to have five minutes with those fucks in a soundproof room. Power drill optional.
It was thrown out on summary judgment in the DC trial court. That’s the judge saying “get the fuck out of my court, you’ve already wasted enough of my time.”
These rotten evil pricks will hopefully come face to face with the white hot ire of an insurance deprived father and get what they deserve.
Because William Munny was wrong. Deserve’s got EVERYTHING to do with it.
No. They’ll just blame Obama.
you are correct. especially “using a person’s stated beliefs against them”. alito, thomas, and anton the political hack will not be making a judicial ruling, they will be voting their beliefs. this is not what the supreme court was meant to be.
Can we please stop calling these assholes “conservatives?”
They’re radical judicial activists.
Well, if all it says is “during good behavior”, it doesn’t specify anything about HOW to get rid of them. Who judges their good or bad behavior? Who gets to decide? Pretty open, isn’t it? Term limits are subject to political interference. Age limits, on the other hand, are not. Back in the 18th century, average mortality rate was much, much lower than today, and the chance of developing age-related dementia was much less. Time to update your Constitution to reflect the realities of the 21st century, IMHO.
Don’t know about that – some have said there is no administrative remedy available in the event of an adverse SS ruling.