Posted on 04/13/2017 11:42:12 AM PDT by Michael.SF.
Dittos to what you said. In fact, that reminds me. I want to send Dingy Harry Reid a “Thank You” note.
If we are going to all sit around and talk about how well the game should be played, we may as well concede and not bother to play at all. Losers talk about how well the game was played winners talk about the score. The only reason to modify the SCOTUS procedure is to rig it in our favor.
That works too.
The Constitution makes all Federal judges/justices lifetime appointments. To create a mechanism to force them “to leave active service” would require changing the Constitution, that is amending it. In addition, changing the required Senate majority to confirm judges would also require amending the Constitution.
Amen to that!
Only strict constructionists should ever be confirmed, which was originally intended. Then political entanglements and bias would not matter.
Is that possible? Doubtful.
That would imply/require principals, largely lacking in today’s pool of judges.
An example might be a flaming liberal judge voting against precedent because strict reading of the Constitution flies in the face of the original ruling (e.g. Roe V Wade).
When Pigs fly.....
You said it all!
Obviously.
My old HS coach put it this way (after a tough loss (at the Colosseum) to Pat Haden's Bishop Amat): "ONLY LOSERS COMPLAIN ABOUT THE OFFICIATING"
Regarding "rigging it in our favor": Right now we have the upper hand. someday we won't. I think this change will help prevent Dems from rigging it in their favor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.