What do you think about with current News and Opinions?

[guest1163268]

Something to understand what nurses think about re the Current News and their opinions!

[toomuchbaloney]

I don't have a beef with using the constitution to dilute the crazy in the SCOTUS.  The first change that I would make is to end the lifetime appointment and put a limit on the terms serving on that court. That would solve many of our over arching concerns. 

[heron, ASN, RN]

34 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

I don't have a beef with using the constitution to dilute the crazy in the SCOTUS.  The first change that I would make is to end the lifetime appointment and put a limit on the terms serving on that court. That would solve many of our over arching concerns. 

But it might escalate others. The point of lifetime appointments is to remove the threat of political retaliation from judicial deliberations, freeing the justices to follow their own judicial reasoning, regardless of the popularity of their ultimate conclusions.

It was this immunity from the ill will of pissed off politicians that finally put paid to the recent attempt at a coup. What do think would have happened if justices had to consider the possible need to fend off attack by trump’s base? How would you preserve their intellectual independence in the face of term limits?

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

2 hours ago, heron said:

What I can’t get behind is messing with one of the bedrock safeguards of our freedom based on emotional backlash, silent agendas and knee-jerk oppositional-defiant urges to make the bastids pay.

I agree. 

I did get a bit concerned when two of the justices took up a political agenda offering the idea that they wanted to end gay marriage.  I don't remember a precedent where they wanted to revisit a prior decision just because they now might be able to accomplish a personal vendetta against gay marriage, but ultimately I have to trust the process that they can't do this.  

They rejected a case by Kim Davis, they upheld lower courts decisions to have lifetime bans on gun ownership for certain felons, upheld Trump's loss, and like I said ultimately I have to trust their interpretation of the constitution and hope they can keep political agendas out of it.  

I think the big concern is over abortion, but that's still no reason to pack the court.

 

[toomuchbaloney]

1 hour ago, heron said:

But it might escalate others. The point of lifetime appointments is to remove the threat of political retaliation from judicial deliberations, freeing the justices to follow their own judicial reasoning, regardless of the popularity of their ultimate conclusions.

It was this immunity from the ill will of pissed off politicians that finally put paid to the recent attempt at a coup. What do think would have happened if justices had to consider the possible need to fend off attack by trump’s base? How would you preserve their intellectual independence in the face of term limits?

That may have been the intent but it doesn't seem to have had the intended effect, so time to try another remedy IMV. 

A set, 10 or year term could be established to allow each presidential term to appoint a justice.  No reappointment.  One and done. 

[guest1163268]

1 hour ago, Tweety said:

I agree. 

I did get a bit concerned when two of the justices took up a political agenda offering the idea that they wanted to end gay marriage.  I don't remember a precedent where they wanted to revisit a prior decision just because they now might be able to accomplish a personal vendetta against gay marriage, but ultimately I have to trust the process that they can't do this.  

They rejected a case by Kim Davis, they upheld lower courts decisions to have lifetime bans on gun ownership for certain felons, upheld Trump's loss, and like I said ultimately I have to trust their interpretation of the constitution and hope they can keep political agendas out of it.  

I think the big concern is over abortion, but that's still no reason to pack the court.

 

It isn't only about abortion. IMO it's about the fact that the last three justices knowing full well that they shouldn't have been nominated ,accepted the posts. 

What does that say about their judgement and pride? Barratt was rushed through and was non compliant at the hearing and is severely compromised by her faith. Kavanagh is a wreck with too many skeletons. Garland took a seat meant for someone else. 

I wouldn't have any of them in traffic court much less the Supreme Court. They have no integrity or shame and knowing how they obtained their positions, they will have no choice but to side with their republican colleagues, aside from the fact of being severely compromised professionally! 

If you knew that a fellow nurse or Dr wasn't qualified and obtained their qualifications through nepotism or connections, would you trust them?

[heron, ASN, RN]

1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:

That may have been the intent but it doesn't seem to have had the intended effect, ... 

How so? Could you explain, please?

[toomuchbaloney]

17 minutes ago, heron said:

How so? Could you explain, please?

The SCOTUS has never been so politically influenced by inappropriatelyseated justices than it currently is. The current practice led to and resulted in this.  Some might say that it was one of the predictable outcomes, if all variables and outcomes could have been imagined. 

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

2 hours ago, Curious1997 said:

It isn't only about abortion. IMO it's about the fact that the last three justices knowing full well that they shouldn't have been nominated ,accepted the posts. 

What does that say about their judgement and pride? Barratt was rushed through and was non compliant at the hearing and is severely compromised by her faith. Kavanagh is a wreck with too many skeletons. Garland took a seat meant for someone else. 

I wouldn't have any of them in traffic court much less the Supreme Court. They have no integrity or shame and knowing how they obtained their positions, they will have no choice but to side with their republican colleagues, aside from the fact of being severely compromised professionally! 

If you knew that a fellow nurse or Dr wasn't qualified and obtained their qualifications through nepotism or connections, would you trust them?

They were all professionally educated and working in the judicial system and nominated, and won the seats in a legal process.  Why on earth would they refuse the highest honor when many people said they were qualified, something they might have dreamed about, and say "oh wait, I'm incompetent and this isn't fair".  I call BS on that idea.

 

[heron, ASN, RN]

43 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

The SCOTUS has never been so politically influenced by inappropriatelyseated justices than it currently is. The current practice led to and resulted in this.  Some might say that it was one of the predictable outcomes, if all variables and outcomes could have been imagined. 

What I’m not getting is how making the court more vulnerable to inappropriate appointments (by vastly increasing the frequency of openings) solves the problem of inappropriate appointments.  How does it work to use a heavily politicized process to neutralize itself? Reminds me of the NRAs argument that the solution to gun violence is more guns. (I don’t buy that one, either) 

Meanwhile, the independence of the judiciary gets significantly damaged ... making the court more vulnerable to political threats when the court doesn’t rule the way the current big dogs want them to rule. Sounds like a disaster in the making to me.

In my view, the current justifications being advanced for expansion have more to do with dictating which political philosophy dominates judicial thinking than with restoring judicial integrity and competence. Gerrymandering in a black dress. Call me an *** if you like, but it’s getting harder to tell the difference between the farmers and the pigs.

[guest1163268]

15 minutes ago, Tweety said:

They were all professionally educated and working in the judicial system and nominated, and won the seats in a legal process.  Why on earth would they refuse the highest honor when many people said they were qualified, something they might have dreamed about, and say "oh wait, I'm incompetent and this isn't fair".  I call BS on that idea.

 

Really?

And that is why we are in the state we're in. When 'educated' individuals are unable to objectively dissect or evaluate a situation. We're not talking about traffic court here. This is the Supreme Court that represents the highest court in the land and should be staffed by the best of the best because their rulings impact all of us! 

Their vetting process should be of the strictest and most diligent of processes and should not be a political appointment. Certainly not by any president especially with the ones we've had and especially not by a pedophile, rapist, racist criminal! 

Supreme Court Justices should have impeccable credentials and not a hint of scandal attached because their conduct is the example for all the courts below them. The swamp begins with them and not with the politicians. 

If politicians understood that any indiscretionary behaviors would be severely punished, there would be few unfavorables. The justice Dept would take their cues from the Supreme Court and every subsequent legal persons. 

Thomas in bed with the Kochs, COMPROMISED. Alito a history of only right wing CAUSES, COMPROMISED . Barrat, religious BELIEFS, COMPROMISED . Kavanagh alcohol and possibly a rapist, most certainly an abuser of WOMEN, COMPROMISED. Garland, a political appointment, do you think McConnell would have waited a year for someone he doesn't own, COMPROMISED! Then how quickly was Barrat pushed through? 

I wouldn't give two hoots if all these people were objective and appropriately appointed. 

 

[guest1163268]

23 minutes ago, heron said:

What I’m not getting is how making the court more vulnerable to inappropriate appointments (by vastly increasing the frequency of openings) solves the problem of inappropriate appointments.  How does it work to use a heavily politicized process to neutralize itself? Reminds me of the NRAs argument that the solution to gun violence is more guns. (I don’t buy that one, either) 

Meanwhile, the independence of the judiciary gets significantly damaged ... making the court more vulnerable to political threats when the court doesn’t rule the way the current big dogs want them to rule. Sounds like a disaster in the making to me.

In my view, the current justifications being advanced for expansion have more to do with dictating which political philosophy dominates judicial thinking than with restoring judicial integrity and competence. Gerrymandering in a black dress. Call me an *** if you like, but it’s getting harder to tell the difference between the farmers and the pigs.

This is elementary logic. 

Do you appoint a baseball coach for the basketball team? Skillset! 

Do you choose a career criminal to teach Sunday school? Nature! 

This current democratic lot are basically pretty good people. They became good people through education and influences. Such people make good decisions because they find it hard to deviate. 

These are the kinds of people I want working for me. I know if they stacked the Supreme Court, it's not going to be with compromised, corrupted individuals like the last three. They are likely to review the voter laws and create a level playing field. 

What's the matter? Are you afraid of a level playing field? 

[heron, ASN, RN]

1 hour ago, Tweety said:

They were all professionally educated and working in the judicial system and nominated, and won the seats in a legal process.  Why on earth would they refuse the highest honor when many people said they were qualified, something they might have dreamed about, and say "oh wait, I'm incompetent and this isn't fair".  I call BS on that idea.

 

I think there are very real questions about the legality of the process ... assertions about suppressed information, for instance. I really hope that someone who knows what they’re doing explores the possibility of impeachment.