answered question
Did you ask this question via Twitter?
We create a Mahalo account for everyone who asks a question via Twitter. Claim your Mahalo account
We create a Mahalo account for everyone who asks a question via Twitter. Claim your Mahalo account
answers (1)
In general, I think it is a bit frightening when any president gets to appoint a justice. It wouldn't be so bad if SCOTUS justices didn't have the job for life, but as it is now, a single presidential appointee can exert direct influence over our nation's laws for decades.
In the specific case of Obama, it is a bit more disturbing as I disagree with him on many points. He is a relatively inexperienced politician eager to be seen as "doing something" in order to consolidate his power. Given that he ran on a platform of "change", he pretty much has to choose someone that is the opposite of a Bush appointee. That means someone "left" enough to be seen as a Democrat victory, and almost certainly a female minority candidate. This is why we ended up with Sotomayor.
I think it is unfortunate that an appointee of such power and responsibility is chosen using politically motivated criteria. The goal should be to choose the "best" candidate, not someone that matches a specific racial and gender profile. I don't care which sex or race is put on the bench, providing that the candidates are chosen because of their qualifications and not their genetics.
I would be happier if the nine justices served only a single 12 year term, as that would span 3 presidencies and help minimize the impact that any one president has on the system. I would also like to have each justice start their term start in different odd numbered years, as that would ensure a mix of views and appointees on the bench at all times and limit the number of appointees one president could make. This sort of limitation would also make it less likely that 85 year olds will rule on peer to peer software, digital privacy and other cutting edge technological issues that they are unlikely to intuitively grasp.
In the specific case of Obama, it is a bit more disturbing as I disagree with him on many points. He is a relatively inexperienced politician eager to be seen as "doing something" in order to consolidate his power. Given that he ran on a platform of "change", he pretty much has to choose someone that is the opposite of a Bush appointee. That means someone "left" enough to be seen as a Democrat victory, and almost certainly a female minority candidate. This is why we ended up with Sotomayor.
I think it is unfortunate that an appointee of such power and responsibility is chosen using politically motivated criteria. The goal should be to choose the "best" candidate, not someone that matches a specific racial and gender profile. I don't care which sex or race is put on the bench, providing that the candidates are chosen because of their qualifications and not their genetics.
I would be happier if the nine justices served only a single 12 year term, as that would span 3 presidencies and help minimize the impact that any one president has on the system. I would also like to have each justice start their term start in different odd numbered years, as that would ensure a mix of views and appointees on the bench at all times and limit the number of appointees one president could make. This sort of limitation would also make it less likely that 85 year olds will rule on peer to peer software, digital privacy and other cutting edge technological issues that they are unlikely to intuitively grasp.
tags: scotus
Related questions
140 characters left
ask any question
