Personally I do not see a viable alternative to the appointment of judges. The politicians will want a say in how they're picked. I do not see them giving up that power any time soon.

I thikn we talked about this once, but how else would you do it?

JimHackerMP wrote:I thikn we talked about this once, but how else would you do it?

I think picking and confirming them is fine. I would get rid of the lifetime appointment. I am thinking 12 years max. We should spread them out so that, barring death, each President would get to pick 3 a term.

JimHackerMP wrote:I thikn we talked about this once, but how else would you do it?

An independent judicial commission to produce the name that the President puts forward.

danivon wrote:

JimHackerMP wrote:I thikn we talked about this once, but how else would you do it?

An independent judicial commission to produce the name that the President puts forward.

No such thing as "independent" these days.

DF's got a point: how would the membership to this council or commission be determined? Who would be on it? How would they get on it? Would Congress appoint it? The Senate alone? The President with the advice and consent of the Senate....see what I mean?

JimHackerMP wrote:DF's got a point: how would the membership to this council or commission be determined? Who would be on it? How would they get on it? Would Congress appoint it? The Senate alone? The President with the advice and consent of the Senate....see what I mean?

Exactly.

What Danivon suggests is ideal. However, there's no "neutral ground" between the Constitution as written and the Constitution as a suggestion (with a "proper" outcome the most important consideration) and everyone knows it.

Here's a great laugh. And I mean a great laugh.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbG-IGXcWng&ebc=ANyPxKqugm9Xfaj8DrQ72Ujb_DcBdLsGR0YguEe48YqRepDqVr4deoRsZqWe5S0IDsBMUDbnmaMU

Yeah, pretty funny.

What Danivon suggests is ideal. However, there's no "neutral ground" between the Constitution as written and the Constitution as a suggestion (with a "proper" outcome the most important consideration) and everyone knows it.

Sorry, what do you mean by that?

JimHackerMP wrote:Yeah, pretty funny.

What Danivon suggests is ideal. However, there's no "neutral ground" between the Constitution as written and the Constitution as a suggestion (with a "proper" outcome the most important consideration) and everyone knows it.

Sorry, what do you mean by that?

There are two opposing viewpoints when it comes to what makes a "good" justice on the Supreme Court. On one side, there is a belief that judges must be anchored to the original intent of the Constitution (or whatever law is being ruled upon). On the other side, the end result is the primary concern. In other words, what would be the best,. "most just" outcome.

As an example, Scalia is said to have been personally against burning the American flag. However, he viewed it as "speech" and therefore believed it was protected by the First Amendment.

Now, taking the latter view, one can rule that burning the flag ought to be illegal because that is the "best" outcome. However, an originalist must set aside his/her preferences in favor of the law as written.

Which sounds easier said than done.

My understanding of Scalia's position is that he wasn't so much concerned with 'original intent', which is itself subject to interpretation, but with literal drafting.

Sassenach wrote:My understanding of Scalia's position is that he wasn't so much concerned with 'original intent', which is itself subject to interpretation, but with literal drafting.

Justice Scalia champions the original public meaning variant of originalism. He writes, “[t]he Great Divide with regard to constitutional interpretation is not that between Framers' intent and objective meaning, but rather that between original meaning (whether derived from Framers' intent or not) and current meaning.”

Whatever that means.

Still if you'd indulge me, Danivon, as to my question about the particulars of such a judicial council?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_o ... ed_Kingdom

This explains the UK system hacker... Its not political