Quote:

Supreme court was set up to decide on issues that are not defined and need to be. Somebody has to have final say (using the constitution as a guide). I am glad we do not elect these justices, they are appointed by the person we elect as president but only when a spot becomes available, like one of them retires (or dies).
I wouldn't want them elected, or to have the ability to influence their decisions in other ways (lobbying etc) or rotated with each administration. I think it's a pretty good setup. What issue do you have with it Pat?
As I mentioned, someone has to have the final say on interpretation of law. Checks and balances are great, but there will always be a need for a final decision. I don't necessarily agree with every decision they make, but I don't think I could come up with a better system.



The old way of sneaking unpopular laws into existence was by adding them to the end of a popular bill that was sure to pass. The new way is submit legislation that is ill-defined in the areas where, if you said what you actually meant, it would never be voted into law. Then, once the bill is passed, you just set up a case where the law is challenged, it goes to the supreme court and they define it...often in ways which are not consistent with the will of the majority. The implications of a very few people making personal judgment calls that affect the whole population is unnerving to me on many levels. Oligarchy is government of the many by a few, and there are aspects of the supreme court that smack of Oligarchy.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ey71h8ep047758h/AAC12jNM0Hz9Q8zsh5iDeqNHa?dl=0