Man found NOT quilty on failure to file income taxes.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is, if not the system as you currently have it, then who should interpret the laws? Nine random guys on the street?

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, randomness is much more likely to provide uncorrupted results. Maybe not 9 random people off the street, but what if it was say 9 people who have passed a test on the constitution, or passed a US government class? In matter of constitutionality, I don't see why the people Presidents appoint are deemed much more knowledgable then just anybody who understands the constitution (I mean I'm sure they know buttloads more about law outside the constitution, but that's not what we're discussing). I'd posit they both meet the requirements, and one is decisively less corruptable.
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I know you want no laws whatsoever, but let's set that aside for a moment.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well yes, but I'd be much more supportable of minarchy if it was shown to be sustainable. And you can't have limited government if the people if it's the government itself that decides how limited it can be. Whatever constitution you have is just a piece of paper, it can't literally stop anything. But without making this a AC/statist thread, I think it highlights a fundamental problem with government, that the incentive to provide "the people" with what's really best just isn't there. We don't have plato's philisopher kings.
[ QUOTE ]
I know the Supreme Court is the target of a lot of hatred from all sides, most of it unwarranted, but on the whole, I do think that most justices have tried their best to uphold the sytem they've been entrusted with without regard to personal or political agendas, even if I happen to disagree with them. At some point, you just have to trust that people will do the right thing, and for the most part, they do.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lord Acton is rolling over in his grave. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[MrMon]

Although it would be nice if the average citizen who knew something about the constitution were qualified to act as a Supreme Court justice (we can dream, can't we?), the fact is, most of the ones who make it are highly trained and way more knowledgable that most of us can ever hope to be. Doesn't make them right, but at least they follow centuries old tradition and procedure in making their decisions, or they should.

The problem with a random appointment system would be the fact that the law would become unstable, and that's exactly what it's not supposed to do. Societies don't function very well when the rules change abruptly and unpredictably. Judicial thinking should move at a glacial pace, radical change is for legislatures. The problem comes when judges seek a desired result, not an interpretation that follows from what is actually under argument. Ginsburg is really guilty of this, but sometimes, the correct interpretation is not one you want to make, but that's what the law says. If someone doesn't like it, tell them to change the law by the the legislative process, not by having a judge determine what is "fair".

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Although it would be nice if the average citizen who knew something about the constitution were qualified to act as a Supreme Court justice (we can dream, can't we?), the fact is, most of the ones who make it are highly trained and way more knowledgable that most of us can ever hope to be.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good thing I'm not saying an average American that knows something about the US constitution is as knowledgable as a supreme court justice.

Constitutional issues are left up to the supreme court. From what I understand this is either all or mostly all of what they do as SCOTUS justices. What makes you think A random justice knows more about the constitution then say DVault?
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with a random appointment system would be the fact that the law would become unstable,

[/ QUOTE ]
Why?
[ QUOTE ]
The problem comes when judges seek a desired result, not an interpretation that follows from what is actually under argument.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think someone appointed by President A is more likely to seek a desired result in a case including President A more or less then a randomly unappointed qualified judge?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
What makes you think A random justice knows more about the constitution then say DVault?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not quite sure I understand your question, and it wasn't directed at me, but to answer your question: justices will conceivably have demonstrated lengthy careers of legal and judicial acumen far beyond what I have (given that I have no legal career whatsoever [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]).

Keep in mind that justices have to go through some level of scrutiny regarding their qualifications, as the Senate has oversight over the President's appointments to federal courts. If you recall President Bush's first candidate to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, Harriet Miers -- who does have a JD from SMU, passed the Texas state bar, and likely decades of experience working in government (in other words, someone who has far more experience and knowledge about American legal system than I) -- stood almost no chance of being approved by the Senate, as even the President's political allies balked at Miers, who's nomination looked suspiciously like crass cronyism. So it's probably fair to claim that the nomination process has a high probability of selecting the top legal minds available, as we can see examples where people with otherwise impressive accomplishments by most standards (like Miers) stand little chance of being put on SCOTUS if they're not also considered a eminent jurist as well.

So it's undeniably true that a random justice will know more about the Constitution, jurisprudence, legal precedence, etc. than I; there really aren't any exceptions to this. Perhaps we could go back in history and find some justices whose appointments weren't based on legal merit and were merely rank ideological favoritism or outright cronyism, but even then, a completely unqualified justice could be no worse than I.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
So it's probably fair to claim that the nomination process has a high probability of selecting the top legal minds available, as we can see examples where people with impressive legal resumes by most standards (like Miers) stand little chance of being put on SCOTUS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Otherwise highly qualified candidates are rejected for political reasons, therefore this process will select the best candidates? I don't buy it.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So it's probably fair to claim that the nomination process has a high probability of selecting the top legal minds available, as we can see examples where people with impressive legal resumes by most standards (like Miers) stand little chance of being put on SCOTUS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Otherwise highly qualified candidates are rejected for political reasons, therefore this process will select the best candidates? I don't buy it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I edited my last post because it wasn't clear; she wasn't "highly qualified" to be a justice on the court, and she wasn't "rejected for political reasons". Miers *does* have an impressive legal resume (law degree, long experience in government) by most standards -- she would likely be considered a highly prestigious hire by a private firm -- but she was generally regarded as un-qualified for the court by all sides. She wasn't rejected for 'political' or 'ideological' reasons -- there was almost universal bipartisan agreement she *wasn't* the best candidate, hence why the pressure mounted and she was forced to withdraw her nomination.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So it's probably fair to claim that the nomination process has a high probability of selecting the top legal minds available, as we can see examples where people with impressive legal resumes by most standards (like Miers) stand little chance of being put on SCOTUS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Otherwise highly qualified candidates are rejected for political reasons, therefore this process will select the best candidates? I don't buy it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless the best legal minds are concentrated in one party, political affiliation criteria doesnt necessarily exclude the best candidates. Roberts and Alito were certainly among the top tier of candidates.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So it's probably fair to claim that the nomination process has a high probability of selecting the top legal minds available, as we can see examples where people with impressive legal resumes by most standards (like Miers) stand little chance of being put on SCOTUS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Otherwise highly qualified candidates are rejected for political reasons, therefore this process will select the best candidates? I don't buy it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless the best legal minds are concentrated in one party, political affiliation criteria doesnt necessarily exclude the best candidates. Roberts and Alito were certainly among the top tier of candidates.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can probably point to Democratic votes against Roberts and Alito (both generally regarded as well-qualified for the court in legal circles) in the run-up to a contentious election season and make a plausible argument as to how the nomination process can still fall victim to political chicanery, but no matter how much hand-waving ACists do about the failure of checks and balances, the Miers "nomination >> withdrawal" strikes me as an unmitigated success for the nomination process; the "lolz but the President can nominate any marionette bozos he wants to do his bidding on the Court, wtf this system sucks!?!?" narrative is contradicted by the fact that we could claim (perhaps too cynically) that President Bush tried to do exactly that and it failed miserably.

Now, two things: had Bush been successful, it's still the case that Miers is likely far and away more knowledgeable about the Constitution and jurisprudence than I, and probably 99% of Americans. Second, there could be an argument made that while Miers would have failed confirmation, perhaps cronyism appointments to the SCOTUS in the past have found success; but to my knowledge, this isn't true. I realize this is a subjective assessment, but I think it's generally agreed that the court has historically been made up of superior legal minds, and not mere political hacks.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
the "lolz but the President can nominate any marionette bozos he wants to do his bidding on the Court, wtf this system sucks!?!?" narrative is contradicted by the fact that we could claim (perhaps too cynically) that President Bush tried to do exactly that and it failed miserably.

[/ QUOTE ]
Slow increments FTW. The US gov't has cleary demostrated in all areas they are good at slowly changing, not all at once.