RBG

Discussion in 'Off-topic Political' started by Nemo, Nov 13, 2019.

  1. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    11,476
    595
    113
    The Republicans should just vote with no hearing. Don't give the Democraps another chance to abuse a judge. Bork, Thomas, Kavanaugh - that's enough.
     
  2. OWM

    OWM Well-Known Member

    3,217
    837
    113
    They can do that. Nothing says they cannot. All the crap they go through now is just new age mess.
    Article II Section 2
    The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

    He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

    The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
     

  3. OWM

    OWM Well-Known Member

    3,217
    837
    113
    Again liberal, left wing, progressive little communist tards acting like snotty nosed eight graders wanting to change the rules to accommodate their many shortcoming.
     
    MSgt G likes this.
  4. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,587
    1,695
    113
  5. Clark

    Clark Well-Known Member

    1,001
    83
    48
  6. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,587
    1,695
    113
    Technically, Supreme Court justices aren't appointed for life. Article 3, Section1 of the Constitution states: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour..." Should they engage in "bad behavior" they can be booted out. The question is what does "bad behavior" entail? I don't think anyone's ever asked.

    Aside of that, isn't the purpose of "lifetime" appointments to protect the justices from undue coercion and "politics" from the Executive and Legislative branches?
     
  7. OWM

    OWM Well-Known Member

    3,217
    837
    113
    You answered your own question.
     
  8. Clark

    Clark Well-Known Member

    1,001
    83
    48
    The problem is, the Constitution was written by men who couldn't fathom things such as lifetime/career politicians. They never imagined a judge would sit on a bench until they grew old and died. They imagined that people would serve until such time as they themselves evaluated themselves as unfit to continue, George Washington even alluded to that in his farewell address. That the power they held during their service was not something to be desired, but rather a burden that they would be glad to be rid of. But modern politics, particularly since the early 1900s, has turned that upside down with people getting rich while in office, and holding on as long as they can to play political games (like RBG) and continue to keep the power. The problem is elected office isn't a burden anymore. Maybe some local jurisdictions where a mayor or city councilperson is paid a $5000 stipend for 40 hours of service per year it kind of is, but once you get to the State level and above, it's a career.

    That's why if I were amending the Constitution, or rewriting it or a State Constitution or founding my own dang country, I'd include several severe limitations:

    1. Universal term limits, where you can't even run for, or be appointed to certain offices, for a length of time equal to your previous service. So if you served in the House for two terms, you can't even run for anything else (at ANY level of govt) for four years. Serve two terms in the Senate? You're stuck for twelve years. Leave the length of the term to whatever, so a city can set its Mayoral term to eight years if it wants, or Congress could still set Supreme Court terms to 18, or 25, or 40 years.

    1a. I'd actually be tempted to make it "one and done" where once you serve at any level, you're done, for life. City council for two years and you're voted out? Too bad, you're done. But this would give too much power to the corporations as who would be known well enough nationally to run for a national office other than a big business professional like Bill Gates or Donald Trump or Warren Buffett. Then you might have to limit candidates to no having held certain positions in any business (over a certain size) for a certain length of time preceding the election or appointment. (Yes, I'm including certain appointed positions in all of this so someone can't leap from say Secretary of State to President).

    2. Require divestment of all directly-managed public securities. You want to keep a 401k under your control? Fine. Have a general money market account with Charles Schwab or Merrill Edge? Fine. But if you're elected to office, your stocks are required to be put in the control of a neutral broker who can have no direct contact with you (so not your spouse, your brother, or your kids) and must manage them as they would manage anyone else's money.

    3. Require a practical college degree. No more people going to college, kissing the right backsides and effectively getting a degree in politics (Political Science, non-lawyer law degree, etc.). Engineering, teaching, computers, biology something hireable out of college, no gender studies, literature, or similar degrees. I'm tempted to exclude law degrees entirely, but I know there are many good, hardworking lawyers, that are grounded in the practical world, and truly seek justice (our own JRM for instance), but there are just as many Clintons and Obamas out there who would gladly jump at the power. I'm also tempted to exclude pure business degrees. Get a degree in software engineering and then get an MBA to run a good software company? Fine. But get a bachelor's of business to get into management? No. Get a bachelor's of business, but also get a mechanical engineering degree? Also fine.

    4. Limit direct, total compensation to the median income of the area you represent. U.S. median income is $61,937. The president shouldn't be compensated more than $61,937 per year. You represent Atlanta's English avenue? Your direct compensation is limited to $26,613. This include any weird "bonuses" paid out of the city/state/national budget. That English Avenue representative gets a $500 bonus for something? Their income the rest of the year now has to be no more than $26,113 from Atlanta.

    5. Related to 4, districts must follow obvious boundaries (roads, railroads, rivers, topography, etc.). This needs to be worded better, but basically no gerrymandering, and like the above, no representing English avenue, then drawing a 10-ft wide city council district up Northside Dr into the Buckhead McMansions so your area median income is now $100,000.

    Yea that's a lot, and not directly related to RBG, sorry, maybe this can be a separate topic. But she's a tip of a very large, very corrupt iceberg. Her behavior has been detrimental to this country, and I believe that all of the above would contribute to pulling politics back into a truly service-oriented domain.
     
    OWM likes this.
  9. Nemo

    Nemo Man of Myth and Legend

    12,798
    814
    113
    gunsmoker likes this.
  10. Bkite

    Bkite PawPaw x 3

    7,837
    355
    83
    Quote from the new nominee...Judge Amy Coney Barrett: “A judge must apply the law as written, judges are not policy makers.”
     
    TimBob likes this.
  11. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,587
    1,695
    113
    They were familiar with the system they wanted to secede from. The King/Queen was a lifetime position. The House of Lords had a substantial number of hereditary members.

    They defined specific lengths of terms for the President, Vice President, Senators and Congressmen, although they didn't specify the number of terms until the 22nd Amendment for the President and Vice President. They consciously chose not to define term limits for Supreme Court justices for a reason.

    I do agree that Senators and Congressmen should be term limited though. Some of them have never held a real job in their entire lives.
     
  12. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    4,440
    487
    83
    The framers knew very well they were creating lifetime tenure for Article III judges.
     
    Savannah Dan likes this.
  13. NTA

    NTA Well-Known Member

    7,270
    129
    63
    How many years in a 1700's life span ?
     
  14. dhaller

    dhaller Active Member

    296
    75
    28
    Average male lifespan in the late 1700s - in the colonies/USA - was about 38.

    (That's a world without vaccines for you!)

    But you have to separate the demographics a bit, as I think you'd find that landowners, aristocrats, etc. had a far greater lifespan than the average peasant, small farmer, etc.

    The class of people from whom Justices would have been drawn probably much longer. There's data on longevity of English aristocrats from the end of the 15th century that IF they made it to 21 (so discounting the childhood mortality rate, which was high) they had a life expectancy of 64. There weren't any significant medical advances until the mid-19th century, so probably wealthy landowner-types could be expected to last about as long, into their 60s.

    So you'd certainly potentially have a crew of grey-beards inhabiting the Supreme Court.

    I think the kind of ancient people we have now, flirting with 90 and so on, definitely weren't part of the equation, though.

    DH
     
  15. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    4,440
    487
    83
    John Adams appointed John Marshall to be chief Justice in 1801. He served for 34 years until he died at age 79.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2020
  16. OWM

    OWM Well-Known Member

    3,217
    837
    113
    Again this person needs to get out of his little elite bubble and visit the outside world. Tour cemeteries in Southeast Georgia and other places and pay attention to the dates on the tombstones. Most lived into their late 70's, 80's and longer( that's a world without addictive drugs for you!). Using the term average can be made to say whatever you want it to.
     
    Savannah Dan likes this.
  17. NTA

    NTA Well-Known Member

    7,270
    129
    63
    No dementia back then either. Those were the good old days.
     
  18. Savannah Dan

    Savannah Dan Cross-drawer

    6,952
    260
    83
    I own a house that was built in 1778 by Jacob Burkhalter, a Revolutionary war veteran. His father, some uncles, brothers, and cousins were also veterans. I have done a lot of research on the family. Jacob was 86 when he died of old age according to the 1850 Mortality Schedule for Georgia. Jacob's father died at 61 and mother at 70. Jacob's son John died when he was 67, but he was a large man at 6'4" 300 pounds, owned one of the 3 pubs in Warrenton, had 2 wives, 11 children, and 22 grand children, so I'm surprised he lived as long as he did.

    Here is a link to the signers of the DoI with their age in 1776 and their age at death. All but 15 were 38 or older in 1776. I think that even the Irish that arrived in Savannah in the mid 1700s and lived in horrendous conditions in slums on the east side of town lived longer than 38 years. Three outbreaks of Yellow Fever in Savannah over the years did put a hurting on life expectancy though.
     
  19. Harhib

    Harhib Active Member

    382
    48
    28
    For years the medical “industry “ has been touting how much our lives and life expectancy have been improved by their wonderful work. As you see a little bit of independent research can show the truth . By looking at the bones we can tell that even Cro Magnon had a life expectancy of 60 years or better baring accidents or some other form of violent death.