5 ms·

This is a poor decision - the party in power will be able to appoint extremists. This may be temporary pleasing, but at some point the other party will be in p

This is a poor decision - the party in power will be able to appoint extremists. This may be temporary pleasing, but at some point the other party will be in power, with the net result that the judiciary will be filled judges of less moderation and more politics.

smackfu 13y ago
The current situation is that the party in power doesn't get to appoint anyone. What good is power then?
- sigzero 13y ago
  I would choose that over the alternative.
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    Except it's quickly reaching the point where they don't even have a quorum of judges. A number of circuits are having to pull judges from other circuits in order to decide cases ...
    - talmand 13y ago
      Is this problem across the board or just for posts that are life-long appointments? I can understand the dilemma over life-long appointments but for judges easily replaced in the future then I fail to see what the hold-up is about.
      - nknighthb 13y ago
        Life tenure is all we're talking about here. It's all that exists in federal courts of general jurisdiction. Every federal district, circuit, and supreme court judge appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate is life tenure. Magistrates, who operate only on the district court level (not in the appellate courts or supreme court), are not Article III judges. They're appointed by the actual Article III judges without input from the President or Senate, and they can handle cases only by the consent of both parties, and their rulings are appealable to an actual Article III district court judge.
- thejteam 13y ago
  At some point in the future, whether it is 4 years, 8 years, or more, the other guy will eventually be in power again. Then you want checks on the guy in power. Next time somebody on the far-right is in power, expect to see some VERY far-right judges appointed.
DannyBee 13y ago
Entirely true in some ways, but it may not matter as much as you think. Seeing very large numbers of cases has a tendency to change political and ideological views over times. The appointees they get are vetted in various ways to at least be qualified at the law, even if they have strong ideologies. Now, certainly, "true believers" aren't going to change, but ... Plus, the federal judiciary doesn't pay well (relatively speaking), so unless they strongly care about deciding hundreds of random crappy cases, they often leave for greener pastures.
tdees40 13y ago
If a majority of Americans prefer extremists, then extremists we shall have. Such is the way of democracy.

smackfu 13y ago

The current situation is that the party in power doesn't get to appoint anyone. What good is power then?

sigzero 13y ago
I would choose that over the alternative.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  Except it's quickly reaching the point where they don't even have a quorum of judges. A number of circuits are having to pull judges from other circuits in order to decide cases ...
  - talmand 13y ago
    Is this problem across the board or just for posts that are life-long appointments? I can understand the dilemma over life-long appointments but for judges easily replaced in the future then I fail to see what the hold-up is about.
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      Life tenure is all we're talking about here. It's all that exists in federal courts of general jurisdiction. Every federal district, circuit, and supreme court judge appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate is life tenure. Magistrates, who operate only on the district court level (not in the appellate courts or supreme court), are not Article III judges. They're appointed by the actual Article III judges without input from the President or Senate, and they can handle cases only by the consent of both parties, and their rulings are appealable to an actual Article III district court judge.
thejteam 13y ago
At some point in the future, whether it is 4 years, 8 years, or more, the other guy will eventually be in power again. Then you want checks on the guy in power. Next time somebody on the far-right is in power, expect to see some VERY far-right judges appointed.

DannyBee 13y ago

Entirely true in some ways, but it may not matter as much as you think. Seeing very large numbers of cases has a tendency to change political and ideological views over times. The appointees they get are vetted in various ways to at least be qualified at the law, even if they have strong ideologies. Now, certainly, "true believers" aren't going to change, but ... Plus, the federal judiciary doesn't pay well (relatively speaking), so unless they strongly care about deciding hundreds of random crappy cases, they often leave for greener pastures.

tdees40 13y ago

If a majority of Americans prefer extremists, then extremists we shall have. Such is the way of democracy.