⸘Ŭalabio‽
2018-10-07 03:03:53 UTC
⸘Howdy‽
¡Peace!
The purpose of this list is voting systems, so this is off-topic, but it is time:
I have always been mine opinion that its should require ⅔rds + 1 Vote to confirm a judge. Now, we have a crazy system of a simple majority, with no filibuster, for confirming judges guaranteeing that judges will be incompetent partisan hacks. We also have the McConnell-Rule:
The Senate will only take up nominations of judicial candidates of the majority party.
Let us look at the results:
President Obama nominated Judge Garland to the Supreme Court. Judge Garland is a good solid choice for the Supreme Court. McConnell refused to even consider the nomination. Instead, McConnell took up the nomination of Judge Gorsuch, a partisan hack, so stupid that he believed that employers can fire employees for refusing to freeze to death on the job.
In the latest case, by a simple majority, the Senate confirmed Judge Kavanaugh, a candidate with 1 disqualification and 1 clarification:
* Kavanaugh openly hates Democrats. This should disqualify him, but for the Republicans, is is a feature.
* Multiple women accuse him of attempted and possibly completed rape. Maybe these are false politically motivated accusations, or maybe he belongs in a cage. We do not know because the FBI did not properly investigate the accusations. The Senate should not have voted until after a proper investigation. If a partisan hack of Leader of the Senate should force a vote anyway, the duty of the Senate is to reject the candidate, rather than risk appointing a potential rapist.
Let us look at what we would have if the Senate would have to take an up-or-down votes on nominations and we would require ⅔rds + 1 Vote for confirmation:
Judges on the Supreme Court would be nonpartisan, well-qualified, competent, effective, et cetera. The court would be effective and respective. ¿Why? Because only good nonpartisan candidates could be confirmed. The having to take up the nominations with an up-or-down vote would prevent abuse.
1 other thing I would change is a 10-year nonrenewable term. Being nonrenewable would allow Judges to vote their conscious, but the decade of service would end the problem of the Supreme Court being a life-sentence:
Judges stay in office until they die or are to ill to continue because they fear bad Judges replacing them. They deserve to enjoy their golden years.
--
“⸘Ŭalabio‽” <***@MacOSX.Com>
Skype:
Walabio
An IntactWiki:
http://intactwiki.org
“You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.”
——
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for l
¡Peace!
The purpose of this list is voting systems, so this is off-topic, but it is time:
I have always been mine opinion that its should require ⅔rds + 1 Vote to confirm a judge. Now, we have a crazy system of a simple majority, with no filibuster, for confirming judges guaranteeing that judges will be incompetent partisan hacks. We also have the McConnell-Rule:
The Senate will only take up nominations of judicial candidates of the majority party.
Let us look at the results:
President Obama nominated Judge Garland to the Supreme Court. Judge Garland is a good solid choice for the Supreme Court. McConnell refused to even consider the nomination. Instead, McConnell took up the nomination of Judge Gorsuch, a partisan hack, so stupid that he believed that employers can fire employees for refusing to freeze to death on the job.
In the latest case, by a simple majority, the Senate confirmed Judge Kavanaugh, a candidate with 1 disqualification and 1 clarification:
* Kavanaugh openly hates Democrats. This should disqualify him, but for the Republicans, is is a feature.
* Multiple women accuse him of attempted and possibly completed rape. Maybe these are false politically motivated accusations, or maybe he belongs in a cage. We do not know because the FBI did not properly investigate the accusations. The Senate should not have voted until after a proper investigation. If a partisan hack of Leader of the Senate should force a vote anyway, the duty of the Senate is to reject the candidate, rather than risk appointing a potential rapist.
Let us look at what we would have if the Senate would have to take an up-or-down votes on nominations and we would require ⅔rds + 1 Vote for confirmation:
Judges on the Supreme Court would be nonpartisan, well-qualified, competent, effective, et cetera. The court would be effective and respective. ¿Why? Because only good nonpartisan candidates could be confirmed. The having to take up the nominations with an up-or-down vote would prevent abuse.
1 other thing I would change is a 10-year nonrenewable term. Being nonrenewable would allow Judges to vote their conscious, but the decade of service would end the problem of the Supreme Court being a life-sentence:
Judges stay in office until they die or are to ill to continue because they fear bad Judges replacing them. They deserve to enjoy their golden years.
--
“⸘Ŭalabio‽” <***@MacOSX.Com>
Skype:
Walabio
An IntactWiki:
http://intactwiki.org
“You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.”
——
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for l