To: Raycpa
It’s very dangerous to have judicial elections-—threatens the intent of the judiciary. yet some people around here love it
4 posted on
07/09/2015 10:56:52 AM PDT by
bjcoop
To: bjcoop
It’s very dangerous to have judicial elections-—threatens the intent of the judiciary. yet some people around here love it
The "intent of the judiciary" has already been destroyed, or have you not been paying attention to the Abortion, Obamacare, and Gay Marriage rulings?
That is EXACTLY why Ted Cruz is suggesting this radical change.
8 posted on
07/09/2015 10:59:14 AM PDT by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: bjcoop
So its preferable to have the marxists currently on the court clearly violating their sworn oaths to the Constitution and instead help facilitate a totalitarian leftist utopia?
9 posted on
07/09/2015 10:59:30 AM PDT by
skeeter
To: bjcoop
Reading the last few SCOTUS decisions it’s cleat the intent of the judiciary is already dead anyway.
To: bjcoop
Better to simply limit members SCOTUS to a single six year term.
25 posted on
07/09/2015 11:55:25 AM PDT by
BenLurkin
(The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both.)
To: bjcoop
It’s very dangerous to have judicial elections-—threatens the intent of the judiciary. yet some people around here love it The intent of the judiciary was to make stuff up and then come up with convoluted ways to justify it so we would all be forced to live with it and having no realistic means of checking them or limiting their power? Huh, learn something new every day.
31 posted on
07/09/2015 12:45:10 PM PDT by
pepsi_junkie
(Who is John Galt?)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson