Don't agree with the Judicial Decision, throw the judge in Prison!!

[Thorn]

Yay!, Struck down, thanks for letting me know.... this thread is obsolete, forever hopefully...... well until the 4th Reich.

[realpolitic]

Actually Thorn, it's obsolete until the 5th Reich. The 4th Reich ended Tuesday.

That margin is reassuring to me too, that includes some of the Fox news nuts, too. I think it's appeal among far right wingers is they don't want judges to make bad decisions when handing out LONG senetences. Until 2000, in Bush v. Gore, critisism of the judicary was quite muted.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I think these changes would really require a constitutional amendment. Remember how effective the SCOTUS was at gutting FDR's New Deal? Even though FDR was one of the most popular Presidents ever, and had a Congress packed with supporters he was unable to make any alterations in the structure of SCOTUS.

The structure of the courts has changed quite a bit over the history of the Republic. We think of nine justices as something permanent, but that number was only set in the late 19th early 20th Century. The only think Congress can't do is screw with judges' pay.

As to the judiciary during FDR's administration, while it is true they struck down a number of his ideas made law, the Congress got fed up with it after a little bit and began making noises they were going to increase the number of justices. SCOTUS got the point and stopped overturning New Deal attempts to save the republic.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Was it ever in doubt?

Actually, yes, as it had majority support in polls.

[MRT144]

why just extend this to judges, why not juries? the decisions of 12 people creates a trail of victims!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Actually, yes, as it had majority support in polls.

I call bull**** unless you can actually back that up.

[chequita guevara]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6288938

click listen

[realpolitic]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Quite a bit, actually. Congress could pass a law requiring all SCOTUS judges to retire immediately.

Originally posted by US Constitution The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Doesn't that mean lifetime appointments?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Good behavior is not defined though . Albeit it has been interpreted as lifetime appointments with the exception of impeachment.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by realpolitic
Doesn't that mean lifetime appointments?

Not necessarily. I would interpret it to mean that you cannot force a judge out simply because you don't approve of the judge or his/her rulings. If you change the rules about how the court is constituted, and that affects current judges, that would still be legal, probably.