Much better to create some comittee we can stuff covertly and let THEM decide who will appoint people to make life and death decisions...

Strong point.

The political parties should have no say whatsoever... but changing the House and Senate rules to change the focus from party, back to The People and The States respectively is a whole different problem.

It's hard to avoid politics--even Bakerstreet's reference to referundum.  

do not read what is not there ok?

My apologies.

 

Speak the elegant justice with a sense of loss

And rile against the pack that howls

excerpt from my verse

Oh? Only Dabe and I are subversive?

I dont recall anyone saying you were. And the post you cite was not name calling anyone, just making an opinion about liberals.  In fact if you read all the responses, you will see that we were debating the subject, but in a very civilized way until pigpen showed up.

do not read what is not there ok?My apologies.

accepted... yer a good man steven.. even if we disagree.

Oh? Only Dabe and I are subversive?

Perhaps subversive is too strong. [a la newsweek retraction]

Requiring 60 votes to confirm judges is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!! Only a simple majority of the Senate (51) is required to confirm judges. The gang of 14 nitwits (Demos & Repubs) who prevented the confirmation by a simple majority should be voted out of office, because a confirmation vote of 60 is amending the Consitution without using the proceedures that are required to amend the Constitution. The Republicans have no guts!! The Repubs (in name only) that sabotaged the Constitution need to be voted out of office. Plus Bush has not exhibited any guts or leadership because he has not used the power of his office to publicly chastise those idiots. The only conclusion is that he is not aware that the agreement formulated by the 14 nitwits curtails the power of the Presidency in appointing the judges that he wants and not those judges that Senators want. The new tone in action!! Bull!! bull!! bull!!

I'd be curious to know if stephendedalus (or any other participant in this discussion, for that matter) has yet studied the pros and cons of the current judicial appointment system, with special regard to the thoughts of the Founders. Surely they must have debated it, neh? And we know in great detail what philosophers, both contemporary and from antiquity, they ahd studied and pondered, before deciding upon the system they did.

Perhaps Stephen can tell us what they were thinking, why they thought as they did, and what arguments he would use to counter them and the philosophies on which they based their deicisons.

A collegial commission on legal matters

Is the American Bar Association a collegial enough commision for you?

The American Bar Association has unanimously rated Justice Owen well qualified, its highest possible rating.

Link

Its funy that I read somewhere that Judges thik most laws are unconstitutional.

Perhaps Stephen can tell us what they were thinking, why they thought as they did, and what arguments he would use to counter them and the philosophies on which they based their deicisons.

First, it was a different era; they had no crystal ball to guide them, nor did they dream there would be fifty states as diverse as they are. Nor did--though surely conscious of religion--they consider today's relentless drive to break down the wall of church and state. Law to them was predicated on the rationalism of the day's politics which minimized authoritarian conceptions.

Law to them was predicated on the rationalism of the day's politics which minimized authoritarian conceptions.

Hello again, Steven -

If I'm not mistaken, they had recently fought a rather vicious and protracted revolutionary war over such "authoritarian conceptions." I'm inclined to believe such conceptions very much informed the long collective debate culminating in the ratification of the Constitution.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Only to have the ugly head of authoritarianism rise again!