My friend and I keep getting into daily arguments over politics. I say one thing, he says another. I have posted a similar question a few weeks ago but apparently I didn't word the question properly so we are still arguing. I am unwilling to just give in and move on as I feel that his view is totally distorted. I suggested I would post the question on mises where the average person is smarter than he and I combined and he agreed.
The question is:
If Barrack Obama can get rid of the current supreme court and appoint a complete new set of judges would our country be better of.
Please, as many of you answer this. I really, really need to end this argument for once and for all.
Thank you!!!!!!
Sometimes "majority" simply means that all the fools are on the same side
I'm inclined to say no. For a lot of reasons.
1. Who does he replace them with? There is no condition that he puts in "better" people, and even if they are better by Obama's standard, does that mean I would find them better? After all, I think Obama is a socialist and a criminal.
2. What sort of precedent is set for a President who can unilaterally replace the entire SCOTUS?
3. The biggest problem in America is not adherence to law. It is a monopoly on the interpretation of law.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
liberty student: I'm inclined to say no. For a lot of reasons. 1. Who does he replace them with? There is no condition that he puts in "better" people, and even if they are better by Obama's standard, does that mean I would find them better? After all, I think Obama is a socialist and a criminal. 2. What sort of precedent is set for a President who can unilaterally replace the entire SCOTUS? 3. The biggest problem in America is not adherence to law. It is a monopoly on the interpretation of law.
Of course, by saying this you'd have let him shift the burden of proof onto you.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
My question would be, what business does the SCOTUS have telling 300,000,000 people how to live their lives? It doesn't matter whom he installs in his version of the Gang of Nine Guys in Black Dresses, because all they will be doing is deciding toward whom the devouring head of the state will be facing.
...Of course, that will likely open up a whole new argument rather than ending your current one. But that's what I'd say.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
"He replaces them with moderate justices. Not nazi conservatives that want to put chips in our a$$ by overturning Roe v Wade."
He lives under this weird impression that the supreme court really is not the same as the other two branches of government.....to which I say.....whatever, they are still trying to tell people what to do.....ugh.....it will never end and more than likely, I will have to put up a "Berlin Wall" between our houses....ha!
Totally beyond help imo.
Well if he replaced all the judges then he would discredit the supreme court big time as it would be very obvious they are nothing but his little club of yesmen, so I suppose some good could come from that. Other than that I don`t see it.
One man's vice is another man's virtue. By who's definition of "better off" are we to define our terms? Mine? Yours? Mob Rule? Would you rather have the freedom to make your own choice? Or would you rather have a choice made for you?
Didn't Ayn Rand say something to the effect of, 'you may allow someone else to make a choice for you, but you cannot escape the fact that a choice must be made' ?
Besides. Don't be ridiculous. Mr. Obama is not a dictator. He cannot "appoint" a complete new set of judges. He may nominate anyone he pleases, as Mr. Bush proved with his idiotic nomination of Harriet Miers. But that does not mean that his nomination is guaranteed a confirmation.
(and even Democrats have constituents with access to tar and feathers.) ;)
First, the POTUS cannot unilaterally replace the entire SCOTUS. The justices' tenure is for life, subject to good behaviour. So, the POTUS would need the cooperation of all of the Justices to retire or the cooperation of both the House and Senate to impeach and convict each justice for poor behavior. This has never happened. The closest example of trying to replace the entire Court is FDR's attempt to pack the court with justices who shared FDR's view of the New Deal. FDR was consistently losing case involving New Deal programs by a vote of five to four and six to three. He attempted to have Congress approve the addition of four new justices to a total of thirteen. (The Constitution des not specify the number of justices for the SCOTUS. They have ranged in number from one to nine.) The justices feared a loss of power if FDR achieved his goal in packing the court. So, a few of the justices "saw the light" and started voting for the New Deal Programs. FDR stopped pursuing his goal to pack the court; it is unlikely he would have succeeded any way. Congress was not likely to give FDR this privilege.
Second, as to whether the country would be better off, it would depend on what you think the country should be in the first place, your view of constitutional interpretation (natural rights, original intent, precedent, a "living document", etc.), and your views for general interpretations of statutes and rules. President-elect Obama would likely appoint justices supportive of his version of socialism; the same would have been true if Senator McCain had been elected. Certainly, having a court that supports the presdents' views would make "change" easier, whatever that change may be. It would most likely eliminate or at least reduce the SCOTUS's check on presidential power. I am not sure how much of a change this would be since the SCOTUS has been AWOL for twenty some odd years when it comes to checking the power of Congress and the President and limiting them to exercising the enumerated powers in the Constitution.
Third, an important part of any legal system is constancy. People, while kicking and screaming about bad laws (laws here meaning legislative acts, rather than laws and customs that naturally arise in a society), can at least adopt to "bad" laws and pursue happiness. If the law is regularly changing, it is hard for people to decide how to act. (I am setting aside for the moment a normative discussion on whether any of these laws and regulations can be good. Instead, I am working within the framework that there are laws (legislative acts) and conflicts over their interpretation. Currently, the rule of stare decisis, adherence to prior court decisions, gives some constancy to the interpretations of the Constitution, statutes and regulations. Each court out of deference to prior courts hesitates to make changes to constitutional, statutory and regulatory interpretation. A complete replacement of the justices on the SCOTUS with justices that President-elect Obama would approve would likely result in drastic changes. Admittedly, this is speculative. There is not much to back this up since the President-elect has been pretty quite about his views of the court and the "ideal" justice.
But, what causes me to speculate this way, is that he will not be alone in making these decisions and the constituencies that will be most involved will likely want justices willing to ignore stare decisis and over turn bad decisions in their view. For example, the ABA and ACLU will likely want justices who would strike down the PATRIOT ACT and limit invasions into our privacy; the NOW, ACLU, etc. will want justices that will further expand abortion rights by reversing SCOTUS' decisions limiting abortion rights; and the Sierra Club and other environmental groups would want justices that would allow for expansion of environmental regulation.
So, if President-elect Obama were to completely replace the justices on the court, there would be great changes. Whether the country would be better off or not depends on your views of his porposed programs. As for me, the country is going to be worse off. If Congress stays loyal, then we may see the greaest shift towards socialism since President Nixon and certainly since FDR.
I hope this helps.
katja328:If Barrack Obama can get rid of the current supreme court and appoint a complete new set of judges would our country be better of.
You have to settle upon what "better off" means. If you think "better off" means libertarianism while your friend thinks "better off" means dictatorship then you won't be able to come to an agreement, even if you both have the same idea of what the effect of him doing so will be.
Of course, if Barrak Obama stacks the court with his judges it would be the same effect as if he disbanded the court. Whatever slight amount of "checks and balances" that it currently provides will be gone. I suspect your friend knows this, but secretly lusts for dictatorships.
You really never know how bad a public official will be. Some surprise you and bring civilization to an intolerable level of barbarism when you thought they would only give you a barely tolerable level of barbarism. So maybe in theory a good supreme court could be put together, but it's probably damn near impossible to realize in practice.
katja328:"He replaces them with moderate justices. Not nazi conservatives that want to put chips in our a$ by overturning Roe v Wade."
Let the state legislatures work out abortion for themselves, and the next thing you know the American National Socialist Party will be loading people on to the cattle cars.
Normally, I would just let this whole thing go. But the fact that he claims he hates government and distruts anything and everything that government does and then to make a statement to think that the country would be better off with a different kind of gvt makes no sense.
I understand that in my life time I will not see this country to be the way I want it to be, but I will do my best to educate as many folks as I can and hope, that my daughter's children will be able to truly enjoy freedom.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap