You on the Supreme Court

[Bear Stearns]

why would i be nominated to the supreme court? i don't attend child sex trafficking parties

[The Black Forrest]

why would i be nominated to the supreme court? i don't attend child sex trafficking parties

Isn’t that the Priesthood?

[Murrcah]

I'd take the job, yeah. Would have to read up on law and perhaps spend a couple arguments just listening and learning, but I could do it.

I will say that everybody who voted to judge cases objectively, including myself, are not being entirely honest. Each person's image of a fair and objective ruling will vary slightly depending on not just their politics but also their school of thought and legal procedure. There is rarely, if ever, a single correct way to adjudicate a Supreme Court case. If there was really a way to judge SC cases completely impartially and objectively, then everybody who said they would in the poll would end up coming up with the same verdict on a given case. Can you really imagine that happening?

[Bear Stearns]

why would i be nominated to the supreme court? i don't attend child sex trafficking parties

Isn’t that the Priesthood?

more likely among public school teachers than priests

[Nue Cascadia]

No, I wouldn't take it. The world needs less government, not more.

[Ulajhan]

This Thread sounds like Court Packing, lol.

I mean that is essentially what it is don't you know?

The Supreme Court is "supposed" to be apolitical but the way it grants power to its members essentially means there's absolutely no reason not to be. There are no checks and balances on the SC outside of the ones the SC sets upon itself.

So you are free to go as wild as you think you can get away with.

[Abarri]

Nope, gotta be a law supergenius first.

On a more serious note, I can't stand the idea of having to work on laws for a huge chunk of my lifetime. Plus, I can't even brilliantly deal with threats and related kinds of sinister crap. The pressure is great because of the consequences such post can bring, and my head can only take so much.

Also, "the power to alter the law"? Isn't that the job of the legislative branch?

"I'm not gonna take it. No! I ain't gonna take it!"

[Chan Island]

Why would you not take a highly paid, very prestigious and notably powerful job that is virtually impossible to be fired from? For life? Of course I'd take it. I probably wouldn't be great at it, but I rate my chances with a few crash courses on American law and the assistance of a few interns.

[Neon Lunar Eclipse]

It seems that the Supreme Court of the United States has pretty much been little more than a secondary legislature for the past several decades. It is not really the respectable entity it once was, so I would decline the offer.

[Kowani]

I'd accept, and immediately repeal Marbury v. Madison.

Stare decisis? Who needs it anyway.

my current hot take is that Marbury was wrongly decided

---

original question-am i replacing a sitting justice?
if yes, yes
if no, what kind of timeline are we in

[Makko Oko]

I'd absolutely accept it and I would seek to be objective in all rulings, rather than be kowtowed by what's politically popular or unpopular.

Dude. You have a seat in the Supreme Court.

The Constitution means diddly squat to you. You already aren't held down by what's popular or unpopular where you sit. Short of a bullet through the head, sickness, or some other thing killing you, you have free reign to act as you please once you get your chair.

Betray the people who got you your seat? be a man of your word? feed them the scraps? it doesn't matter what are they gonna do? vote you out?

Fat Chance.

You do realize Congress CAN impeach Supreme Court justices right? So really, if you did something bad enough to cause both sides to hate you, good luck staying in that seat.

As for me, who wouldn't want to be on the Supreme Court?!? Honestly, I'd give a middle finger to all politicians and rule to what the basis actually states (Ex. the constitution or previous precedent), if you want change, like somebody else said, you change it, if you don't like the Constitution, you change it. The Supreme Court doesn't exist to baby you, even though they're kind of doing that right now.

[El Lazaro]

Dude. You have a seat in the Supreme Court.

The Constitution means diddly squat to you. You already aren't held down by what's popular or unpopular where you sit. Short of a bullet through the head, sickness, or some other thing killing you, you have free reign to act as you please once you get your chair.

Betray the people who got you your seat? be a man of your word? feed them the scraps? it doesn't matter what are they gonna do? vote you out?

Fat Chance.

You do realize Congress CAN impeach Supreme Court justices right? So really, if you did something bad enough to cause both sides to hate you, good luck staying in that seat.

Good luck getting 67 senators to vote on anything, much less the impeachment of a SCOTUS justice.

[Ulajhan]

You do realize Congress CAN impeach Supreme Court justices right? So really, if you did something bad enough to cause both sides to hate you, good luck staying in that seat.

Essentially what El Lazaro said.

The necessary amount of work it would take to get a Supreme Court Justice out of their chair is so high that it doesn't bear any thinking.

You are sitting in that chair for life unless a literal miracle takes place.

[Big Jim P]

I'd be a pure originalist/textualist.

[The Black Forrest]

I'd be a pure originalist/textualist.

Ah. Interpretation from the conservative view point…..

[Ethel mermania]

I'd be a pure originalist/textualist.

Ah. Interpretation from the conservative view point…..

#metoo

The document says what it says. You want to change it, to say sexual orientation and gender identity are covered by it there is process to do so defined in the document.

The constitution isn't a big ball of fluffy goodness, it is a document written by flawed men about their notion of an ideal government. I think they did pretty well, and the thing they did best was to have an amendment process. What the constitution to mean something else, change it.

[Big Jim P]

Ah. Interpretation from the conservative view point…..

#metoo

The document says what it says. You want to change it, to say sexual orientation and gender identity are covered by it there is process to do so defined in the document.

The constitution isn't a big ball of fluffy goodness, it is a document written by flawed men about their notion of an ideal government. I think they did pretty well, and the thing they did best was to have an amendment process. What the constitution to mean something else, change it.

Exactly.

[Ifreann]

If I was making rulings based on my own personal beliefs, I wouldn't feel the need to pretend that I was actually acting as a vessel for the will of the Founders.

[Ethel mermania]

If I was making rulings based on my own personal beliefs, I wouldn't feel the need to pretend that I was actually acting as a vessel for the will of the Founders.

Weird then how I support gay marriage and some abortion, but don't see either in the constitution.

The problem is when people want something, refuse to do the work to get it, or accept most other folks don't want it, then try and jamm it down the nations throat anyways.

[Ifreann]

If I was making rulings based on my own personal beliefs, I wouldn't feel the need to pretend that I was actually acting as a vessel for the will of the Founders.

Weird then how I support gay marriage and some abortion, but don't see either in the constitution.

Weird, I do.

The problem is when people want something, refuse to do the work to get it, or accept most other folks don't want it, then try and jamm it down the nations throat anyways.

Yeah man, those lazy, entitled Baby Boomers.

[Heloin]

If I was making rulings based on my own personal beliefs, I wouldn't feel the need to pretend that I was actually acting as a vessel for the will of the Founders.

Weird then how I support gay marriage and some abortion, but don't see either in the constitution.

The problem is when people want something, refuse to do the work to get it, or accept most other folks don't want it, then try and jamm it down the nations throat anyways.

Irrelevant. Textualism is based on the imaginary idea that you know the exact will of the founders based on a sometimes very vague document written to be edited if need be. You’re insisting the constitution can’t already cover something because you are interpreting it as such. There is no such thing as textualism, it is purely at best a conservative, and at worst dangerously reactionary, reading of the constitution.

Originalism is even worse because claiming to be one is just a flat out lie unless your pushing to bring back slavery and segregation.

[Ethel mermania]

Weird then how I support gay marriage and some abortion, but don't see either in the constitution.

The problem is when people want something, refuse to do the work to get it, or accept most other folks don't want it, then try and jamm it down the nations throat anyways.

Irrelevant. Textualism is based on the imaginary idea that you know the exact will of the founders based on a sometimes very vague document written to be edited if need be. You’re insisting the constitution can’t already cover something because you are interpreting it as such. There is no such thing as textualism, it is purely at best a conservative, and at worst dangerously reactionary, reading of the constitution.

Originalism is even worse because claiming to be one is just a flat out lie unless your pushing to bring back slavery and segregation.

Its not irrelevant, and your interpretation of originalism wrong. The thirteenth amendment makes slavery illegal, the 14th guarantees voting rights for men. The 19th women's voting rights. Originalism would apply to what they meant when written. You know that yet would rather compare folks who don't support your position to slavers.

[Ethel mermania]

Weird then how I support gay marriage and some abortion, but don't see either in the constitution.

Weird, I do.

The problem is when people want something, refuse to do the work to get it, or accept most other folks don't want it, then try and jamm it down the nations throat anyways.

Yeah man, those lazy, entitled Baby Boomers.

Get some right, get some wrong.

[Heloin]

Irrelevant. Textualism is based on the imaginary idea that you know the exact will of the founders based on a sometimes very vague document written to be edited if need be. You’re insisting the constitution can’t already cover something because you are interpreting it as such. There is no such thing as textualism, it is purely at best a conservative, and at worst dangerously reactionary, reading of the constitution.

Originalism is even worse because claiming to be one is just a flat out lie unless your pushing to bring back slavery and segregation.

Its not irrelevant,

It’s completely irrelevant. Your statement of support has no bearing on relevance, praising the founders has no relevance, and thinking a purely textual reading is even possible has no relevance since anything is open to interpretation making the idea itself impossible.

and your interpretation of originalism wrong. The thirteenth amendment makes slavery illegal, the 14th guarantees voting rights for men. The 19th women's voting rights. Originalism would apply to what they meant when written. You know that yet would rather compare folks who don't support your position to slavers.

That’s purely your interpretation of the constitution. You are interpreting that you think you know what they meant. Orginalism is a term meant to make one interpretation sound more official than another, it’s a lie.

[The Alma Mater]

Ah. Interpretation from the conservative view point…..

#metoo

The document says what it says. You want to change it, to say sexual orientation and gender identity are covered by it there is process to do so defined in the document.

The constitution isn't a big ball of fluffy goodness, it is a document written by flawed men about their notion of an ideal government. I think they did pretty well, and the thing they did best was to have an amendment process. What the constitution to mean something else, change it.

But should we take other documents those flawed men wrote into account when interpretating the text? Franklin for instance wrote a "how to safely perform an abortion at home" text; indicating he did not oppose the practice.