If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
US supreme court
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
i hear that george w bush gets to nominate new candidates for the US supreme court because 2 judges might resign
isnt the american executive supposed to be seperate from the judicary etc? can anyone clarify tihs for me?
also more politically, if he gets to nominate 2 judges,couldnt he upset the balance of power between the judges? this is important since it is the supreme court that has made many things legal in your apparantly so socially & economically liberal such as abortion,gay sex in private as recently reported
also some of the expected nominations are not going to be because of their ability as a judge, but because how scandal free they are, or cause their race (one is hispanic and that just might help mr bush get elected again by the us-hispanic etc)
isnt the american executive supposed to be seperate from the judicary etc? can anyone clarify tihs for me?
also more politically, if he gets to nominate 2 judges,couldnt he upset the balance of power between the judges? this is important since it is the supreme court that has made many things legal in your apparantly so socially & economically liberal such as abortion,gay sex in private as recently reported
also some of the expected nominations are not going to be because of their ability as a judge, but because how scandal free they are, or cause their race (one is hispanic and that just might help mr bush get elected again by the us-hispanic etc)
0
Comments
But you are right, it is a very flawed system that the President gets to nominate the judges. Can we really trust Dubya to be impartial in his nomination?
In a presidential system of government there generally is a seperation of powers.
The second flash point was the 2000 election - in 2000 the balance was 5-4 conservative to liberal justices. Two conservative and a liberal justices wanted to retire this therefore means the balance of power was to be decided, however had Al Gore won the conservative justices would have hung on for a Republican President, as Sandra Day O'Connor said on election night 2000, but the liberal Chief Justice William Rehnquist is really old in his 80s/90s and so if he dies he will be replaced by a conservative justice appointed by President Bush giving the conservatives an even bigger majority in the Supreme Court.
We can but pray that Bush is defeated in 2004 and the next administration exposes to the public just how this one betrayed the nation in oh so many policy areas.
The very basis of the Constitution and the division of powers and the right of the public to hold our political leaders fully accountable (now essentially abrogated by this Bush admin with its stonewalling and secrecy) is that we would not be subject to such absolute power as represented in a Monarchy. You need to go back and take some serious civics classes pnj if you dont even have that much realisation of the founding principles of our nation.
And you have the audacity to suggest Im not an American! :rolleyes: Its you who doesnt seem to even know the fundamental precepts of US governance.
I might remind you that it was this predominantly conservative Supreme Court which ran roughshod over the rights of the citizenry to a fair and transparent election in 2000 by denying the authority of Florida Supreme Court to order a complete and thorough recount according to a unified standard (thus allowing thousands of votes for Gore to be tossed out and a virtual coup d'etat for the Republican candidate).
So much for impartiality, justice and Constitutionality being upheld.