Supreme Court Judges

[ValleyTiger 2,894]

We've been discussing many current political issues in a class of mine, and I brought up the issue of creating terms for Supreme Court Justices. I based my logic on the idea of corrupt judges making decisions that will influence 28 million people.

Why is it that it is Constituional to protect one person's radical views just because they have their rights when their views might infringe upon the majority's rights. Is it best to always protect the rights of minorities when their rights infringe on the majorities? Do some Justices read this idea into the Constitution?

The previously stated does not necessarily express my personal opinions, but does express the questions of my class. I just wanted to bring this to you guys and see what you had to say.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I think it's a good thing. It keeps the court from having wild swings back and forth as terms expire and different parties take over the White House and Congress. It makes for more incremental shifts over time that reflect a sustained change in the political leanings of the citizenry.

[Tiger Al 0]

We've been discussing many current political issues in a class of mine, and I brought up the issue of creating terms for Supreme Court Justices. I based my logic on the idea of corrupt judges making decisions that will influence 28 million people.

When you say 'corrupt' I think of a judge who breaks the law by rendering a decision for money, etc. Quid pro quo. However, I think in the context that you are using it, and this may simply be conditioning from my involvement on this board, when you say 'corrupt' you mean 'opposing your particular viewpoint.' In dealing with corrupt judges as I think of it, they can be impeached. If they are breaking the law or ethics they can be legally removed, so in that sense, it isn't a lifetime appointment. 'Ideologically corrupt' judges are a matter of opinion and always have. That's why the confirmation process is so important.

Why is it that it is Constituional to protect one person's radical views just because they have their rights when their views might infringe upon the majority's rights. Is it best to always protect the rights of minorities when their rights infringe on the majorities? Do some Justices read this idea into the Constitution?

What types of 'radical views' do you mean? That's a pretty broad term. It isn't good to protect anyone's 'rights' if they infringe on anothers rights. The biggest problem I've seen is exactly who has defined the 'right' in question. For example, say that in Alabama it was common practice to haul off and hit anybody right in the nose whenever they said anything you didn't like. Next thing you know, here comes the mealy-mouthed ACLU saying that by hitting a person because they said something you didn't like was a violation of their civil rights and it goes to trial and is determined that, in fact, it is against their civil rights and as a result, it becomes a crime to hit someone because you didn't like what they said. Now, the hitters are moaning because they feel like their rights have been infringed on because it's always been OK to hit people you disagree with.

That's a pretty oversimplified explanation of what I mean, but that's the crux of it.

[ValleyTiger 2,894]

When you say 'corrupt' I think of a judge who breaks the law by rendering a decision for money, etc. Quid pro quo. However, I think in the context that you are using it, and this may simply be conditioning from my involvement on this board, when you say 'corrupt' you mean 'opposing your particular viewpoint.' In dealing with corrupt judges as I think of it, they can be impeached. If they are breaking the law or ethics they can be legally removed, so in that sense, it isn't a lifetime appointment. 'Ideologically corrupt' judges are a matter of opinion and always have. That's why the confirmation process is so important.

You're right. I shouldn't have used the word corrupt, but say Bush named some member of the NAACP, KKK, or any other rights group. What if this judge abused his power to relay the opinions of his respective group but within the legal limits of the law, would this be in the best interests of the public?

What types of 'radical views' do you mean? That's a pretty broad term. It isn't good to protect anyone's 'rights' if they infringe on anothers rights. The biggest problem I've seen is exactly who has defined the 'right' in question. For example, say that in Alabama it was common practice to haul off and hit anybody right in the nose whenever they said anything you didn't like. Next thing you know, here comes the mealy-mouthed ACLU saying that by hitting a person because they said something you didn't like was a violation of their civil rights and it goes to trial and is determined that, in fact, it is against their civil rights and as a result, it becomes a crime to hit someone because you didn't like what they said. Now, the hitters are moaning because they feel like their rights have been infringed on because it's always been OK to hit people you disagree with.

That's a pretty oversimplified explanation of what I mean, but that's the crux of it.

Lol, just hearing 'ACLU' gets my blood boiling, but nonetheless....i'll use an example we discussed in class, a public school bans T-shirts with confederate flags on them b/c one child states that it affends him/her. The same government owned school takes a survey to see where the rest of the students stand and it comes to a huge majority of the students checking that they have no problem with the flag. Still, the school bans the shirts(which is legal I know); does this not infringe on the other students' right to wear what they wish as long as no violence or friction was evident b/c of the matter? Its sort of like a teacher giving an unGodly assignment to an entire class simply b/c one pupil broke the rules. I guess I'm just trying to say: Why do we protect the smallest minority over the overwhelming majority? Doesn't common sense tell you to protect the majority?

[CCTAU 3,369]

I guess I'm just trying to say: Why do we protect the smallest minority over the overwhelming majority?  Doesn't common sense tell you to protect the majority?

Get him Al. You know he's a lilly white racist turd for just suggesting that the majority might actually be right!

<note sarcasm above>

God forbid the majority actually get what they vote for.

Or even get a chance to vote on it.

[Tiger Al 0]

No, CCTAU, Lil Aubie hasn't shown himself to be a lilly white racist turd! Not to me, anyway.

You're right. I shouldn't have used the word corrupt, but say Bush named some member of the NAACP, KKK, or any other rights group. What if this judge abused his power to relay the opinions of his respective group but within the legal limits of the law, would this be in the best interests of the public?

Again, the confirmation process SHOULD weed the really extreme ones out, whether liberal or conservative. But, should one get through (OR GET A RECESS APPOINTMENT!!!) and begin to turn 'bad,' the appeals process is in place to hopefully hold that in check. If all of this fails, you're just stuck, or elated, whichever applies!

a public school bans T-shirts with confederate flags on them b/c one child states that it affends him/her.

Although I don't like confederate flags for reasons that have been discussed here before, I might have a problem with the banning of them without knowing anymore than I do about your hypothetical.

The same government owned school takes a survey to see where the rest of the students stand and it comes to a huge majority of the students checking that they have no problem with the flag.

If I'm the principal I certainly wouldn't take a survey. As the responsible party, it would be my decision to allow or not allow the shirts.

Still, the school bans the shirts(which is legal I know); does this not infringe on the other students' right to wear what they wish as long as no violence or friction was evident b/c of the matter? Its sort of like a teacher giving an unGodly assignment to an entire class simply b/c one pupil broke the rules.

But you already said friction was evident when there was a complaint. Besides, students have a right to wear what the school allows them to wear.

However, I think you have to look at it on a case by case basis unless, as you said, it's really getting out of hand and problems are being caused by it.

I guess I'm just trying to say: Why do we protect the smallest minority over the overwhelming majority? Doesn't common sense tell you to protect the majority?

This is the part where I'm about to get creamed by the majority on this board!

No, common sense tells you that, in the absence of overruling forces, the majority always protects its' own interests at the expense of the minority. A walk through history bears this out. Sometimes this isn't wrong or bad, though. If 8 out of 10 of us vote for pizza, guess what's for dinner? Domino's!!! But, what if those other two are, say, allergic to cheese? If the majority continues to force its' will on them time after time and they have no other way to get food, then that's not so good. The Social Darwinist says "So what? That's life." But in a society like ours, everyone is to be protected by an overruling force called the law. Does that mean that the two allergics always get to decide what's for dinner? No. It means the majority has to make allowances occasionally and if it doesn't there might be some penalties.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

In principle, Tiger Al's right. We might (and probably would) disagree on the particulars of how protecting the minority would be fleshed out in every instance, but as a general principle, the rights of the minority need to be particularly protected through law and the courts.

[ValleyTiger 2,894]

No I'm not a lilly white racist turd. I was just expressing some of the views of my class. Those views weren't necessarily mine, but the questions and examples we expressed in class. I understand that people's rights have to be protected.

[Tiger Al 0]

No I'm not a lilly white racist turd. I was just expressing some of the views of my class. Those views weren't necessarily mine, but the questions and examples we expressed in class. I understand that people's rights have to be protected.

So, what did you say in class? Is this high school or college?

[ValleyTiger 2,894]

A high school history class. I pretty much listened to everyone bicker without achieving any ground.