22 ms·

It's a welcome check on the Executive and Legislative branches. Anyone can become President, and anyone can become a lawmaker. It takes a lifetime of respect

It's a welcome check on the Executive and Legislative branches. Anyone can become President, and anyone can become a lawmaker. It takes a lifetime of respect to earn a seat on the Supreme Court bench.

sgc 8y ago
It has in general, but not lately.
jecxjo 8y ago
Respect is not quite the word I'd use. Yes you have to put in your time, but politics play just as much a role in SCOTUS appointments as any other branch. The major difference is that the appointees do not pander to the public for votes, rather they pander to those we have voted into office.
- sathackr 8y ago
  Even including recent events, I think the actual judicial track record of the Supreme Court proves its legitimacy. These people put huge amounts of research, thought, and reasoning into their decision. Every single person will have some sort of bias. We are all human. Sometimes the court will 'lean' left, sometimes it will lean right. Over the years it has been an anchor of reason and stability that is very much appreciated by this American.
  - pmoriarty 8y ago
    "These people put huge amounts of research, thought, and reasoning into their decision." What makes you think the judges are the ones who actually do all that research, thought, and reasoning? They all have a staff to do that for them.
jeromegv 8y ago
I'm sure lots of women would not agree with your last statement.
thatoneuser 8y ago
People here commenting that the last point isn't valid are ironically demonstrating just how much respect the bench requires. Thankfully, blind allegations with no substantiation aren't enough to ruin a whole careers worth of earned respect.
- KorematsuFred 8y ago
  Yes good point. Kavanaugh's appointment showed us that if you aspire to be a SC judge you better make sure you behave well right from your teens. Some dubious instant from 30 years ago might come to hurt you.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    The sexual assault allegations addressed by the reopening of his confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court seem to have made everyone forget the fairly blatant perjury about his role in Bush Admin torture policy in his confirmations hearings for the D.C. Circuit that was addressed (but let slide) in the first round of his Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
    - KorematsuFred 8y ago
      True. There were many serious concerns about his competence as a judge which were not even discussed and everyone focused on his sex life.
  - TheGRS 8y ago
    I would probably argue that it didn't show us that at all.
- pharrington 8y ago
  > Thankfully, blind allegations with no substantiation aren't enough to ruin a whole careers worth of earned respect. And apparently, neither is lying during your sworn testimony to Congress.
- zimpenfish 8y ago
KorematsuFred 8y ago
I am from India and Indian courts are nothing but bunch of old men sermonizing everyone else. They often have barely read law, believe in extraordinary processes and completely arbitrary legal doctrines such as "constitutional morality" that compels them to actually ignore the law. Digging deep I realize that this is because most of them will retire at 60 after which they either seek lucrative jobs from their political masters or they want to appear on TV debates as "experts". They have even reserved a lot of jobs for their own kind post-retirement. A number of institutions in India can only have "retired judge" as their chief. Even though there are strong arguments why judges in USA too should have term limits or retirement age, I think there are these issues in our blindspot that need attention too.
- keko039ndnfm 8y ago
  It’s the same in the US The masses are bought in and ignore it Not one of the judges on the SC questions the correctness of the process They just regurgitate the things they’ve been taught and studied There is no more outside the box consideration of the system here than there is in India And this forum is just as emotionally blind to it as all the others
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    Not one of the judges on the SC questions their place the correctness of the process They do this all the time...in nearly every decision...It's literally their job to question the correctness of the judicial process...
    - thoughtstheseus 8y ago
      You can also read their published opinions to see exactly how they came to a conclusion.
  - keko039ndnfm 8y ago
    They question the correctness of decisions made by the US judiciary system from inside the system They decide if the inside of the box is working correctly in an undemocratic fashion, based upon their biases Not the correctness of the US judiciary system itself Thomas Jefferson advocated for a system that would allow future generations to reasses it’s Constitution and laws, and adjust as necessary We got James Madison’s version of government, who described the Senate as a legislative body to protect the rich minority from the poor majority. Thus the justice system evolved over time only assessing laws and building its existence on questions of property rights and ownership. Not saying it’s scandalous or wrong but it’s only concerned with internal consistency, like India. Look at how the GOP is largely pushing a platform that’s hundreds of years old, with an outcome that resembles the way things were before the New Deal It’s just old guys advocating for their personal feelings. Exactly what the person from India said :shrug:
dragonwriter 8y ago
> It takes a lifetime of respect to earn a seat on the Supreme Court bench. No, it just takes the support of the President and a sufficient number of Senators. Of which, by your own argument, anyone can become either; there is either more of a filter than you’d like to pretend on the political branches, or less than you’d like to pretend on the judiciary.
- CharlesColeman 8y ago
  >> It takes a lifetime of respect to earn a seat on the Supreme Court bench. > No, it just takes the support of the President and a sufficient number of Senators. You're kinda both right. The legal mechanism says that "a lifetime of respect" isn't necessary, but the norms that have evolved around its use say otherwise. Recent history demonstrates (in the extreme) that norms aren't inviolable, but I think the ones around the competency of Supreme Court confirmees is stronger than most.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    That's because, by and large, it also takes considerable respect in practice to become a President or Senator (sure, you can find a few exceptions, but you can for the Supreme Court, too, and there have been a lot fewer Supreme Court justices than Senators and Presidents combined.)
  - dclowd9901 8y ago
    Convention has proven, especially recently, not to be a great thing on which to stand the propriety of a nation.
    - cmurf 8y ago
      I think that's the wrong conclusion. Norms and conventions are expedients. To have to put such things into law is really inefficient and even questionable whether they too would hold up in the face of systemic corruption. The right conclusion is the importance of character assessment skill in an electorate.
  - 8y ago
discordance 8y ago
Minus the odd occasion of sexual assault [1]. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh#Sexual_assault_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh#Sexual_assault...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- wtf_is_up 8y ago
  *alleged
  - dclowd9901 8y ago
    No, you're right: highly respected and professionally stable women often go out of their way to drag themselves and their reputations through the mud to have no effect on the nomination and subsequent appointment of a Supreme Court Justice. That makes perfect sense.
    - concordDance 8y ago
      You're looking at it the wrong way. The question is not what the odds are of a given professional and highly respected woman lying/having false memories. The question is what are the odds of such a person existing. Here's a a scenario with made up numbers where you can insert your own: Imagine your starting population is 60 million, assume only 1 in 100 are very passionate. Assume that only 1 in 100 very passionate people are willing to lie and drag their reputationa through the mud to fight a great evil. Assume only 1 in 100 of those people are respectable. That still would leave 60 respectable people willing to lie and fight hard in order to fight a great evil.
    - billner 8y ago
      She also instantly became a hero to nearly half the country and made hundreds of thousands in a gofundme. It's not all bad
    - Chris2048 8y ago
keko039ndnfm 8y ago
The second statement is false. How much a candidate raises has been correlated to ability to win. That eliminates anyone that can’t raise money. And Kavanaugh’s nomination casts doubt on the third statement. You can be a vile POS, but become a SCOTUS judge so long as you’re networked with the right people.
- solveit 8y ago
  >How much a candidate raises has been correlated to ability to win. Key word being correlated. Winners raise more money in large part because people donate to candidates they think will win. So your third statement is technically true, but in a very uninteresting way that you probably didn't intend.
  - keko039ndnfm 8y ago
    My intention was to call into question the statement “anyone can be President or a legislator.” Which you’ve agreed is nonsense. But yes let’s just disconnect it from context and polish the shit out of it
- kortilla 8y ago
  Correlated != caused. As candidates gain popularity they always bring in more money.
JohnFen 8y ago
> It takes a lifetime of respect to earn a seat on the Supreme Court bench. No, it really doesn't. It takes backing from powerful politicians and/or lobbyists. Respect doesn't enter into it.
alasdair_ 8y ago
>Anyone can become President Somewhat irritatingly, I (and a large number of other American Citizens) cannot ever become president because we were not citizens at birth.
- mikekchar 8y ago
  Is there not also a weird clause where you have to agree in the existence of a supreme being (it can be any supreme being, I think) because otherwise you can't take the oath of office? I suppose an atheist is very unlikely to become president of the US any time soon, but I always wondered what would happen if one did get voted in.
  - mc32 8y ago
    I'm sure the congress would find a workaround if that came to be. Perhaps you'd just have consider it (the swearing in) just a part of the ceremony and not part of a belief? Of course, an atheist zealot would probably have an issue with that, but I imagine the kind of atheist to get elected would be the pragmatic kind.
  - stonogo 8y ago
    There are states outlawing atheists from holding state offices, but the oath of office for US president does not contain religious references. It is specified in the Constitution. Oaths of office for other federal positions do contain the phrase "so help me God," but so far as I know there has never been a problem omitting it; I had several friends in Federal service do so.
  - kortilla 8y ago
    No, that’s not a thing. “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." That’s it. “So help me god” is not part of it, despite some tradition. Not all presidents have used bibles or sworn to a god. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_Presiden...
TheGRS 8y ago
This comment doesn't seem to of been made with the last 3 or so years of history in mind.
rhizome 8y ago
>It takes a lifetime of respect to earn a seat on the Supreme Court bench. If that were true, more justices would ascend to the court quite close to their deaths. In reality, it's maybe half a life, less if you subtract youth.

sgc 8y ago

It has in general, but not lately.

jecxjo 8y ago

Respect is not quite the word I'd use. Yes you have to put in your time, but politics play just as much a role in SCOTUS appointments as any other branch. The major difference is that the appointees do not pander to the public for votes, rather they pander to those we have voted into office.

sathackr 8y ago
Even including recent events, I think the actual judicial track record of the Supreme Court proves its legitimacy. These people put huge amounts of research, thought, and reasoning into their decision. Every single person will have some sort of bias. We are all human. Sometimes the court will 'lean' left, sometimes it will lean right. Over the years it has been an anchor of reason and stability that is very much appreciated by this American.
- pmoriarty 8y ago
  "These people put huge amounts of research, thought, and reasoning into their decision." What makes you think the judges are the ones who actually do all that research, thought, and reasoning? They all have a staff to do that for them.

jeromegv 8y ago

I'm sure lots of women would not agree with your last statement.

thatoneuser 8y ago

People here commenting that the last point isn't valid are ironically demonstrating just how much respect the bench requires. Thankfully, blind allegations with no substantiation aren't enough to ruin a whole careers worth of earned respect.

KorematsuFred 8y ago
Yes good point. Kavanaugh's appointment showed us that if you aspire to be a SC judge you better make sure you behave well right from your teens. Some dubious instant from 30 years ago might come to hurt you.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  The sexual assault allegations addressed by the reopening of his confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court seem to have made everyone forget the fairly blatant perjury about his role in Bush Admin torture policy in his confirmations hearings for the D.C. Circuit that was addressed (but let slide) in the first round of his Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
  - KorematsuFred 8y ago
    True. There were many serious concerns about his competence as a judge which were not even discussed and everyone focused on his sex life.
- TheGRS 8y ago
  I would probably argue that it didn't show us that at all.
pharrington 8y ago
> Thankfully, blind allegations with no substantiation aren't enough to ruin a whole careers worth of earned respect. And apparently, neither is lying during your sworn testimony to Congress.
zimpenfish 8y ago

KorematsuFred 8y ago

I am from India and Indian courts are nothing but bunch of old men sermonizing everyone else. They often have barely read law, believe in extraordinary processes and completely arbitrary legal doctrines such as "constitutional morality" that compels them to actually ignore the law. Digging deep I realize that this is because most of them will retire at 60 after which they either seek lucrative jobs from their political masters or they want to appear on TV debates as "experts". They have even reserved a lot of jobs for their own kind post-retirement. A number of institutions in India can only have "retired judge" as their chief. Even though there are strong arguments why judges in USA too should have term limits or retirement age, I think there are these issues in our blindspot that need attention too.

keko039ndnfm 8y ago
It’s the same in the US The masses are bought in and ignore it Not one of the judges on the SC questions the correctness of the process They just regurgitate the things they’ve been taught and studied There is no more outside the box consideration of the system here than there is in India And this forum is just as emotionally blind to it as all the others
- gamblor956 8y ago
  Not one of the judges on the SC questions their place the correctness of the process They do this all the time...in nearly every decision...It's literally their job to question the correctness of the judicial process...
  - thoughtstheseus 8y ago
    You can also read their published opinions to see exactly how they came to a conclusion.
- keko039ndnfm 8y ago
  They question the correctness of decisions made by the US judiciary system from inside the system They decide if the inside of the box is working correctly in an undemocratic fashion, based upon their biases Not the correctness of the US judiciary system itself Thomas Jefferson advocated for a system that would allow future generations to reasses it’s Constitution and laws, and adjust as necessary We got James Madison’s version of government, who described the Senate as a legislative body to protect the rich minority from the poor majority. Thus the justice system evolved over time only assessing laws and building its existence on questions of property rights and ownership. Not saying it’s scandalous or wrong but it’s only concerned with internal consistency, like India. Look at how the GOP is largely pushing a platform that’s hundreds of years old, with an outcome that resembles the way things were before the New Deal It’s just old guys advocating for their personal feelings. Exactly what the person from India said :shrug:

dragonwriter 8y ago

> It takes a lifetime of respect to earn a seat on the Supreme Court bench. No, it just takes the support of the President and a sufficient number of Senators. Of which, by your own argument, anyone can become either; there is either more of a filter than you’d like to pretend on the political branches, or less than you’d like to pretend on the judiciary.

CharlesColeman 8y ago
>> It takes a lifetime of respect to earn a seat on the Supreme Court bench. > No, it just takes the support of the President and a sufficient number of Senators. You're kinda both right. The legal mechanism says that "a lifetime of respect" isn't necessary, but the norms that have evolved around its use say otherwise. Recent history demonstrates (in the extreme) that norms aren't inviolable, but I think the ones around the competency of Supreme Court confirmees is stronger than most.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  That's because, by and large, it also takes considerable respect in practice to become a President or Senator (sure, you can find a few exceptions, but you can for the Supreme Court, too, and there have been a lot fewer Supreme Court justices than Senators and Presidents combined.)
- dclowd9901 8y ago
  Convention has proven, especially recently, not to be a great thing on which to stand the propriety of a nation.
  - cmurf 8y ago
    I think that's the wrong conclusion. Norms and conventions are expedients. To have to put such things into law is really inefficient and even questionable whether they too would hold up in the face of systemic corruption. The right conclusion is the importance of character assessment skill in an electorate.
- 8y ago

discordance 8y ago

Minus the odd occasion of sexual assault [1]. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh#Sexual_assault_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh#Sexual_assault...

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
wtf_is_up 8y ago
*alleged
- dclowd9901 8y ago
  No, you're right: highly respected and professionally stable women often go out of their way to drag themselves and their reputations through the mud to have no effect on the nomination and subsequent appointment of a Supreme Court Justice. That makes perfect sense.
  - concordDance 8y ago
    You're looking at it the wrong way. The question is not what the odds are of a given professional and highly respected woman lying/having false memories. The question is what are the odds of such a person existing. Here's a a scenario with made up numbers where you can insert your own: Imagine your starting population is 60 million, assume only 1 in 100 are very passionate. Assume that only 1 in 100 very passionate people are willing to lie and drag their reputationa through the mud to fight a great evil. Assume only 1 in 100 of those people are respectable. That still would leave 60 respectable people willing to lie and fight hard in order to fight a great evil.
  - billner 8y ago
    She also instantly became a hero to nearly half the country and made hundreds of thousands in a gofundme. It's not all bad
  - Chris2048 8y ago

keko039ndnfm 8y ago

The second statement is false. How much a candidate raises has been correlated to ability to win. That eliminates anyone that can’t raise money. And Kavanaugh’s nomination casts doubt on the third statement. You can be a vile POS, but become a SCOTUS judge so long as you’re networked with the right people.

solveit 8y ago
>How much a candidate raises has been correlated to ability to win. Key word being correlated. Winners raise more money in large part because people donate to candidates they think will win. So your third statement is technically true, but in a very uninteresting way that you probably didn't intend.
- keko039ndnfm 8y ago
  My intention was to call into question the statement “anyone can be President or a legislator.” Which you’ve agreed is nonsense. But yes let’s just disconnect it from context and polish the shit out of it
kortilla 8y ago
Correlated != caused. As candidates gain popularity they always bring in more money.

JohnFen 8y ago

> It takes a lifetime of respect to earn a seat on the Supreme Court bench. No, it really doesn't. It takes backing from powerful politicians and/or lobbyists. Respect doesn't enter into it.

alasdair_ 8y ago

>Anyone can become President Somewhat irritatingly, I (and a large number of other American Citizens) cannot ever become president because we were not citizens at birth.

mikekchar 8y ago
Is there not also a weird clause where you have to agree in the existence of a supreme being (it can be any supreme being, I think) because otherwise you can't take the oath of office? I suppose an atheist is very unlikely to become president of the US any time soon, but I always wondered what would happen if one did get voted in.
- mc32 8y ago
  I'm sure the congress would find a workaround if that came to be. Perhaps you'd just have consider it (the swearing in) just a part of the ceremony and not part of a belief? Of course, an atheist zealot would probably have an issue with that, but I imagine the kind of atheist to get elected would be the pragmatic kind.
- stonogo 8y ago
  There are states outlawing atheists from holding state offices, but the oath of office for US president does not contain religious references. It is specified in the Constitution. Oaths of office for other federal positions do contain the phrase "so help me God," but so far as I know there has never been a problem omitting it; I had several friends in Federal service do so.
- kortilla 8y ago
  No, that’s not a thing. “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." That’s it. “So help me god” is not part of it, despite some tradition. Not all presidents have used bibles or sworn to a god. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_Presiden...

TheGRS 8y ago

This comment doesn't seem to of been made with the last 3 or so years of history in mind.

rhizome 8y ago

>It takes a lifetime of respect to earn a seat on the Supreme Court bench. If that were true, more justices would ascend to the court quite close to their deaths. In reality, it's maybe half a life, less if you subtract youth.