It Is MOST Important To Nominate (and approve) Good Judges

Tenth Amendment Center ^ | August 6, 2016 | knarf

[knarf]

Here is a pretty good treatise about Supreme Court Judges.

Note the things to do BEFORE approving a judge.

"The Court has elevated itself to a level that seems almost unreachable. It makes pronouncements and all of America bows down. But Paulson insists remedies exist, and he identifies six actions that can serve to check Supreme Court overreach.

Full substantive ideological review at the appointment and confirmation stage of a judicial candidate’s judicial philosophy, including the posing of “litmus test” questions.

Control over the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction through aggressive use of the Exceptions Clause power (“jurisdiction stripping”).

Manipulation of the size of the Supreme Court (both “Court packing” and Court “unpacking”).

Impeachment of judges and justices for believed abuse of judicial power, violation of the judicial oath, and violation of the Constitution.

Legislation prescribing correct substantive and methodological “rules of decision” governing the judiciary’s interpretation and application of federal law of all types and abrogating the judicial policy of (occasional) stare decisis with respect to precedent decisions departing from such rules.

Presidential (and perhaps state and lower court) non-execution of judicial decisions inconsistent with the objective original meaning of the Constitution or other federal law."

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

One certain ground for the rejection of candidates to be appointed to the bench being a candidates assertion: “I want to make a difference.” Fool! It is your job to render JUDGEMENT not to make a difference.

[Brian Griffin]

We need a Constitutional judicial amendment to be effective October 1, 2018:

1. the jurisdiction of federal courts shall be limited to:
a. cases where the federal government or a foreign government is either the plaintiff or a defendant
b. cases where either the plaintiff or a defendant is a foreign person covered by US accredited diplomatic status,
foreign public minister, a current/former US federal Constitutional officer or current/former US federal judge
c. controversies between two or more states
d. private civil disputes (primarily) of the District of Columbia or a federal territory or a federal reservation
e. federal copyright issues
f. patent and federal inventive exclusivity issues
g. admiralty and maritime issues
....

[pfony1]

IMHO, each candidate for a higher judicial office should be asked if driving at 65 mph on a road marked “55 mph speed limit” is legal.

This question will probably lead to rejection of all the tap-dancin’ Harvard Law grads...

Good!

[Brian Griffin]

The main problem is that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases involving states.

We need permanent limits on government taxing power and federal judicial power - and we can get them by trading amendments for a scofflaw immigrant amnesty effective upon final ratification, if we make an offer before the election.

The scofflaws can’t wait and neither should we.

Ryan would give away amnesty without insisting on Constitutional amendments to protect us against future governments, likely to be mostly Democratic for about three decades until the children of the scofflaw immigrants become large scale taxpayers.

[mistfree]

One question? Have any of these EVER been applied?

[knarf]

To my knowledge, no.

The article is written to support these propositions which I think every patriotic American will agree to.

[Jacquerie]

<>One question? Have any of these EVER been applied?<>

Which is why an Article V convention of states is necessary. Start with Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments.

[TBP]

According to reports, Trump is looking at Peter Thiel for the Supreme Court.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-trump-would-tap-thiel-for-supreme-court-nomination/article/2601889