LogFAQs > #909091855

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, Database 4 ( 07.23.2018-12.31.2018 ), DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	The Supreme Court is fucked
Anteaterking 09/19/18 11:25:00 PM #25:	DarkTransient posted... The whole reason for the lifetime nominations is so that they can't be threatened with political sanction if they don't follow agendas. Once they're in, they're in, and (barring serious shit that justifies impeachment) they can go completely against the interests of those who got them into the position and there's nothing they can do about it. *Realistically, there's no way you're going to avoid that and* avoid partisan nominations at the same time.** If you genuinely believe there is, chances are you're confusing "nonpartisan" with "agrees with me". You could still avoid "political sanction" with a fixed length term, if you have a 1 term limit. An e.g. 15 year term which you could only be appointed to once would have no real repercussions for justices going against their nominator. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:909091855] in The Suprem... [t:77021135]...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote>The whole reason for the lifetime nominations is so that they can't be threatened with political sanction if they don't follow agendas. Once they're in, they're in, and (barring serious shit that justifies impeachment) they can go completely against the interests of those who got them into the position and there's nothing they can do about it. Realistically, there's no way you're going to avoid that and avoid partisan nominations at the same time. If you genuinely believe there is, chances are you're confusing "nonpartisan" with "agrees with me".</quote> You could still avoid "political sanction" with a fixed length term, if you have a 1 term limit. An e.g. 15 year term which you could only be appointed to once would have no real repercussions for justices going against their nominator. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1