On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 19:41:06 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 12/14/2012 10:49 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, a religious test is not supposed to apply, but sadly it seems
>> that the majority of voters seem to think that if you're not Christian,
>> you shouldn't run.  Hell, there are still places in the US where if
>> you're an atheist, you can't testify in court (so I've heard).
>>
> Well, not sure about the later, though, I would suspect that, in some
> places, the courts might arrange things so that they didn't anyway..

I think I might've misremembered, it was that in one of the southern 
states (Alabama, perhaps) it was post-2000 before they could.

> But, yeah, unfortunately, the majority of people can't seem to make the
> connection between, "90% of the people running for office claim to be
> Christian.", and, "A lot of those people running for office are
> dangerous, only in it for themselves, don't care about the public, are
> corrupt, or maybe even, nuts.", and that, thus, the ****last**** thing,
> if it is at all, that should be used to make such a decision is, "The
> guy claims to believe in Jesus!" Gives me a headache. Or, maybe that has
> something to do with the indention in my desk, from the odd motion my
> head makes, every time I watch this bullshit in political campaigns?

What gives me a headache is watching politicians demonstrate their 
beliefs and ignorance - belief in the Christian god, ignorance about 
things that actually affect the planet (climate change, etc.) - and their 
pride in both.

> Still, again, where is the, "Does this guy even know how much 2+2
> equals, or that its not the same thing as PI, despite what ever their
> favorite book says.", not a criteria? :p

I'd like to see some sort of minimum bar set, but there is the question 
of what constitutes the minimum bar.  It can't (nor should be) the need 
for a degree, as there are a lot of very smart people who don't hold 
degress, and a lot of truly stupid people who do.

>>  From my understanding, there is no way to fire a sitting judge on
>>  SCOTUS.
>> By definition, they can't do something unconstitutional, because they
>> get to decide how the constitution is interpreted.  Even if the
>> majority said "uh, no, you got it wrong", the supreme court justices
>> seem to have an immunity to that kind of criticism.  I don't think an
>> individual citizen could even sue to have one removed from the bench.
>>
> Yeah, which is about what I get out of it. Very scary, if you ask me. I
> don't comprehend how the heck that got overlooked, or even if it was, or
> if some assumption was made about how they could be, but was never
> directly stated. All I do know is that, by such a standard of
> "permanent" and "unassailable" position, you create two problems:

I think the assumption was that those who were appointed as judges would 
be party-neutral and would just interpret the law without putting a spin 
on it.  I don't think the founding fathers foresaw the complexity of 
modern law very well (not that that's a "fault" per se, telling the 
future is very a tricky business).

> 1. A party/group could, as conservatives have been trying to do, and
> have even said they intend to do, promote people there who could
> undermine the spirit of the constitution, by interpreting it the way the
> "party" thinks it should be.

Yup.  Though I think those on the right might well say the same about 
those on the left as well - that, for example, my interpretation of the 
second amendment undermines the spirit of individual freedom in the 
constitution.

> 
> 2. That could backfire, and, for all intents and purposes, the justices
> could, themselves, maneuver matters, such that they hold the real power.
> It would require they act via proxies, but.. since they interpret the
> constitution, if the right laws got fiddled into it, and passed as
> "constitutional", by them, its possible, if a long shot.

I think that's perhaps a longshot at best.  It's why you have 
confirmation hearings and the like - someone up for a position on the 
high court would have to essentially fake an entire career, and that kind 
of outright lying just isn't sustainable.

> It really doesn't matter though if they control the government, or if
> they simply act according to the principles of some minority party, the
> result is the same. The constitution, and new laws, get "interpreted"
> through the lens of people who have no interest in serving the
> constitution, instead of just using it to their own ends. And, that is
> **not** acceptable.

Agreed.

Jim

Post a reply to this message