NationStates

Please consider the following hypothetical:

It is possible for you to be instantly inserted as a Supreme Court Justice. The American public will magically accept this. Your colleagues on the SC will also accept this.

You’ll receive all the job benefits of being on the SC as well as the power and responsibilities. Do you want it?

You’ll have the clerks and the support system to help you research legal issues etc

Options:

Yes (good pay, job security, the power to alter the law, sign me up)
No (I am not worthy/the negatives outweigh the positives/it’s a boring job)

If you do accept the job, would you rule fairly, objectively, and impartially… or would you allow progressive politics to influence your rulings (focusing on results over the law), hence taking expansive interpretations of what the Constitution says and covers while there was no way in the 18th century that the Founding Fathers would have agreed with you that this was covered?

I would want the job just because. I will not elaborate on what rulings or decisions I will make on certain cases because...the internet is wild.

I'm just going to use a random number generator to determine my position on a court case

1 for "Yes"
2 for "No"

Socialist Ancomistan wrote:I'm just going to use a random number generator to determine my position on a court case

1 for "Yes"
2 for "No"

Did you join?

Random.org gave me 1, so yes I would join

Yes, I'd totally take the job. I like money the idea that I can contribute to making laws to make the world a better place.

To quote one NS issue, "allow us to elect our own judges!", or at the very least there should be term-limits on the whole thing.

I wouldn't take the job, as it would be conceding I agree with the powers and responsibilities given to the institution, which I don't, as reducing said powers and responsibilities is the only way to truly establish a more democratic America.

Yes I would. To be able to input my own politics into it yes. I wouldn't care much for the voices of others, only my way.

Yes, I would take the job. Do I want it? Not really. But the Supreme Court just ordered a million American women killed so if I can change that and I don't, I'm kind of a dick.

progressive politics is being fair and objective, IM.
also last i checked there are areas of law that 200 year dead slaveowners had nothing to do with
sooooo what's your point again?

Although I'd definitely be confused as to why, a Canadian citizen, with zero legal experience whatsoever, was nominated to be on the Supreme Court of the United States in the first place, I'd be more than willing to take the job: if nothing else, reinstating Roe v. Wade and basically making the court more "liberal," even if on some issues, I'd be more left-wing than even the most liberal of liberal justices would be worth it, and that's before we factor in the pay, the benefits, et cetera, et cetera.

I would be a part of the supreme court in order to try to reinstate roe v wade, for just one example

-Holy Roman Empire wrote:I would be a part of the supreme court in order to try to reinstate roe v wade, for just one example

i can say the same

I don't see why states should any say about people do with their lives, nor the electors.
your life is very personal, and only belong to you.

Of course, I would and I would be as blatantly corrupt as I possibly can. Because I hate the system but love the benefits.

So start flooding my mailbox with bribes and lets make that magic happen.

Yes I would, so I could impart my agenda on the masses. You gotta take what you can get in this world.

I would get really originalist, and rule that US secession from Britain was illegal and an act of treason.

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.

In other words, I'd actually do my job rather than acting like a wannabe politician. If you don't like a law, change it. If you don't like the constitution, amend it. It shouldn't be the Supreme Court's job to fight activist's battles for them.

Emotional Support Crocodile wrote:I would get really originalist, and rule that US secession from Britain was illegal and an act of treason.

Actually screw it. I'd do this.

Down with the Supreme Court, up with the Privy Council!

Radiatia wrote: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.

I would also bully Kavanaugh remorselessly.

I'd accept.
And then use my powers to plunge the US into chaos, so to hasten the rise of our Feline Lords.

I’d accept the job and rule not exactly fair, I’m still biased against conservatives and Republicans, but let’s not get politics into the thread.

I’d immediately reject anything that would further suppress the rights of people, but with business, you betcha I would suppress it.

I'd accept the job and become one of the most literalist judges in American history. Imagine Ron Paul as a court judge... That's the kind of literalism we're talking about.

The pay isn’t that great TBH. I’d still take the job though because they can’t impeach you for laziness and you have plenty of time for other things. As for money actual money, being a justice makes side deals harder, it’s true, but there are always “book deals” and such (or I could become an artist). So I guess that would take care of things.

I wouldn’t need much time to make decisions because - like everyone on the internet - I already know everything that there is to know. So that makes it easy. Like zero time would be needed. On the other hand I would presumably not give a shit about a lot of it so I would just go with the majority most of the time without checking what was even being discussed. (I’d need the time to “write” all those books).

If forced to write an opinion by the other justices I’d get the clerks to write it. I’d put no effort in whatsoever and probably not even read it because those things are stultifyingly boring.

I’d be the greatest justice in history,

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

Stare decisis? Who needs it anyway.

I'd probably get removed from the bench before I could have too much fun.