For "strict constitutionalists" they are missing the whole point

[SoCalDem]

of the SCOTUS and ALL lifetime appointment jobs. Our founders who WROTE the constitution were NOT in favor of political parties to begin with, but they foresaw the possibility that they would become powerful, and lifetime appointments were actually designed as a PREVENTATIVE measure against parties becoming too powerful..

The lifetimers would be ABOVE politics because they never had to stand for office or ask for votes..


___________________________________________________________________
If you go to
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id ...

you will find an interesting article..
a snip of it follows...

Justice for Life?
The case for Supreme Court term limits.

BY STEVEN G. CALABRESI AND JAMES LINDGREN
Sunday, April 10, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

It has been almost 11 years since the last vacancy opened up on the Supreme Court. The current group of justices has served together for longer than any other group of nine justices in American history.

What is more, the average tenure of justices has gotten a lot longer in the last 35 years. From 1789 until 1970, justices served an average of 14.9 years. Those who have stepped down since 1970, however, have served an average of 25.6 years. This means justices are now staying more than 10 years longer on average on the Supreme Court than they have done over the whole of American history.

The reason for this is not hard to find. Recently, the average age at time of appointment has been 53, which is the same as the average age of appointment over the rest of American history. The retirement age, however, has jumped from an average of 68 pre-1970 to 79 for justices retiring post-1970. Two of the current justices are in their 80s, two in their 70s, and four more between 65 and 69. Only one, Clarence Thomas, is younger than 65. The current Court is a gerontocracy--like the leadership cadre of the Chinese Communist Party.

snip....
____________________________________________________________________


The recent history of our Supreme Court..say from the 60's to the present..(notice a trend?) has become hyper-political, because of the rise of right wing republicanism.

The cases that the court has received reads like a who's who of issues that are handpicked to generate the constant state of controversy and strife that's necessary for the "behind-the-scenes" stuff of the republicans to succeed.

The decisions that the court hand down could affect us all tremendously, and do not affect US at all..at the same time. Most of the decisions are about restricting personal freedoms, while strengthening corporate or government powers. Most everyday people are just too busy or non-caring to even notice. So freedom gets whittled away, one splinter at a time, and by the time people start paying attention, it will be too late.

People have said that "someday the ordinary people will take to the streets" ..like they have done in the past.. That 's going to be a whole lot less appealing than those marches of old..

Think of the "precautions" that are in effect NOW, that were NOT back then.and think of how CONTROLLED the media is these days.. The reason that so many spectacular things were accomplished from those marches for past times, was because we ALL saw it in our living rooms EVERYDAY.. The media TOLD us what was happening in the streets.. Even a kid in Kansas (like me) could flip on tv and SEE the marches and sit ins at Berkeley.. we could watch MLK's march on DC..

These days, MLK would have been "detained", and there would be a piece on G-21 that mentioned "a few hundred trouble-making, agitators (suspected terrorist-sympathizers) were disrupting traffic and creating a public nuisance" in DC..

Taking to the streets is not the option it used to be..

The Supremes are the "final answer", so the people who sit in judgment over all of us, MUST be at least appear to be impartial...not a bunch of political hacks who received the ultimate job of patronage..

[NorCalDem]

1. The judge isn't supposed to be

beholden to political party identification, but they never said the president couldn't nominate someone for political purposes

Here is something I don't understand about strict "constitutionalists." If the constitution granted the citizenry the right to change laws as they see fit (through the proper channels of course, i.e. congress and senate, SCOTUS, etc.) then why do they hate most of the legislation passed in the 20th century (New Deal, Roe vs. Wade, etc., etc.). This legislation was approved by the people in a democratic way, therefore it is now PART of the constitution, and isn't just a new "interpretation" of the Constitution.

If the founding fathers had intended for the Constitution to be written in stone, they would have written it in stone. If they hadn't intended to give people the right to change it, then why did they write the Bill of Rights and the first TEN AMENDMENTS (Amendment meaning act of changing for the better, correction or alteration). If the founding fathers did not intend to leave decisions in the hands of the people, then why the fuck didn't they just appoint a King.

Anyone who argues as a strict "constitutionalist" doesn't believe in the Constitution, which specifically legislates our right to change that document as we see fit.

GRRRRR.... I actually got madder as I was typing this response.

[SoCalDem]

3. No flames here..

Change is a good thing.. and it's inevitable. Things have happened over the years that the founders could NEVER have imagined..

I'm sure they anticipated advances in transportation, but does anyone think they imagined what we have now...

Weapons to them (the 2nd amendment) were muskets, knives, rakes, spears, swords, cannon..

women had NO rights, and they probably did not even foresee a time when they would..

They probably anticipated the freeing of slaves, but as far as they were concerned, that advance would probably end as indentured servant (like the poor whites)...

Times change, and so should the constitution..

The SCOTUS should be the final place to rule on some of the truly DUMB legislation that passes from time to time, and to settle difficult points of law, but they are now the "founders, reincarnate"

[Igel]

5. Roe v Wade wasn't legislation.

It was a SCOTUS case.

It struck down laws prohibiting abortion during the first trimester.

[noiretextatique]

2. the court used to be the last refuge

its rulings were isntrumental in the progress made by the various civil rights movements. the rw has been pissed ever since.

[mmonk]

4. They seem to think

they are to stop the legislative branch from legislation (except for reinterpreting the establishment clause).