No, it just takes the support of the President and a sufficient number of Senators. Of which, by your own argument, anyone can become either; there is either more of a filter than you’d like to pretend on the political branches, or less than you’d like to pretend on the judiciary.

> No, it just takes the support of the President and a sufficient number of Senators.

You're kinda both right. The legal mechanism says that "a lifetime of respect" isn't necessary, but the norms that have evolved around its use say otherwise.

Recent history demonstrates (in the extreme) that norms aren't inviolable, but I think the ones around the competency of Supreme Court confirmees is stronger than most.

In other words, I think you are right that they are mostly-removed from the liberal vs conservative circus... But they are not really removed from those anti-constitutional and anti-liberty politics which both those parties defend.

> Even respondents acknowledge the existence of an illicit market in marijuana; indeed, Raich has personally participated in that market, and Monson expresses a willingness to do so in the future. More concretely, one concern prompting inclusion of wheat grown for home consumption in the 1938 Act was that rising market prices could draw such wheat into the interstate market, resulting in lower market prices. Wickard, 317 U.S., at 128. The parallel concern making it appropriate to include marijuana grown for home consumption in the CSA is the likelihood that the high demand in the interstate market will draw such marijuana into that market. While the diversion of homegrown wheat tended to frustrate the federal interest in stabilizing prices by regulating the volume of commercial transactions in the interstate market, the diversion of homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their entirety. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.

Did you actually read this? Have you read any parts of the constitution?

Federal powers are constitutionally enumerated, and those which are not are reserved for the states.

The premise of this discussion you've quoted here -- that the feds have the duty to centralize command and control authority over modest home production of plants for one's own consumption -- is obviously not the intent of the constitution, nor is it remotely American, nor remotely consistent with liberty.

The current legal definition seems to make the assumption that when the founders sat around writing the constitution, one of them looked up and asked for a nice punchy way to say "the complete domain of reality from the ground to the infinite reaches of the heavens above" and the reply was "oh, just say interstate commerce."

umm.. not familiar with this case, but:

from a federal position there is no such thing as legal marijuana, and from a constitutional position federal law trumps state law -

which is not to say i disagree about the sheer human folly of regulating the existence of plants via legislation.

The case itself wasn't about whether federal law trumps state law, though. It was about whether the federal law in question is constitutional in the first place - i.e. that the federal government has authority granted to it by the Constitution to prohibit a person growing marijuana plants for their own private consumption (i.e. not for sale, and especially not for sale across state lines, which would then obviously be "interstate commerce"). The plaintiff was arguing that since it's personal use and not interstate commerce, it's out of scope of the federal law. The reason why state law was relevant is to show the exact nature of harm suffered - if not for federal law, the plaintiff would have access to medical marijuana to alleviate his pain.

SCOTUS upheld an earlier decision from Wickard v. Filburn, which basically states that any production and consumption is "interstate commerce", because it affects market prices - if you grow something for your own use, you're not buying that something on the market, the reasoning went. I suggest reading about both decisions, just to see how ridiculous some of our legal reasoning is. And then keep in mind that those decisions are the only thing that makes many federal laws constitutional - it's not just drug prohibitions, but e.g. the Civil Rights Acts.

So both the left and the right have a stake in maintaining this interpretation - both want to be have broad regulatory authority on the federal level, just for different reasons. It doesn't make it any less flawed or ridiculous, but I wouldn't consider it an example of partisan court bias.

but it seems like there are 2/3 threads being comingled in the case:

a) illegality of marijuana itself b) interstate commerce-related issues pertaining to private growth

the 'b' parts you mention definately seem like flawed, unconstitutional reasoning (e.g. expanding the definition of commercial and therefore regulated to include things that actually arent)

as for 'a' - "And when state legalizes it, all that means is that they're repealing state laws making it illegal."

this can't be true true - otherwise there would be no regulation/taxes on dispensaries, etc. in legalization states, which there certainly is..

so it's not like there is a federal law and a 'blank' at the state.. there are contradicting state laws treating it as legal, and federal ones which say it is illegal..

Liberal judge == living constitution

The "conservative" judges votes align extremely well with each other and with the wishes of the political party that nominated them -- which is itself frequently not "conservative" in the sense of "conserving" something. In both cases, the claim to "conservatism" strikes me as having a lot more to do with group identity than any consistent ideology or approach.

Digging deep I realize that this is because most of them will retire at 60 after which they either seek lucrative jobs from their political masters or they want to appear on TV debates as "experts". They have even reserved a lot of jobs for their own kind post-retirement. A number of institutions in India can only have "retired judge" as their chief.

Even though there are strong arguments why judges in USA too should have term limits or retirement age, I think there are these issues in our blindspot that need attention too.

On the flip side, the higher courts of our judiciary do have eminent jurists, who are respected internationally. India is considered to have the most powerful judicary in the democratic world. And in my opinion, they have used this power judiciously to make more far-reaching changes to empower our democracy than abused it.

I do have criticisms too (for e.g., I don't like the idea of judges appointing judges as it upsets the delicate balance of power between the executive and the judiciary), but I recognize that despite their shortcomings they do a pretty decent job - in fact much better than most judiciaries of the developed democratic world when it comes to protecting the rights of indian citizens.

The masses are bought in and ignore it

Not one of the judges on the SC questions the correctness of the process

They just regurgitate the things they’ve been taught and studied

There is no more outside the box consideration of the system here than there is in India

And this forum is just as emotionally blind to it as all the others

They do this all the time...in nearly every decision...It's literally their job to question the correctness of the judicial process...

They decide if the inside of the box is working correctly in an undemocratic fashion, based upon their biases

Not the correctness of the US judiciary system itself

Thomas Jefferson advocated for a system that would allow future generations to reasses it’s Constitution and laws, and adjust as necessary

We got James Madison’s version of government, who described the Senate as a legislative body to protect the rich minority from the poor majority. Thus the justice system evolved over time only assessing laws and building its existence on questions of property rights and ownership.

Not saying it’s scandalous or wrong but it’s only concerned with internal consistency, like India.

Look at how the GOP is largely pushing a platform that’s hundreds of years old, with an outcome that resembles the way things were before the New Deal

It’s just old guys advocating for their personal feelings. Exactly what the person from India said :shrug:

> They decide if the inside of the box is working correctly in an undemocratic fashion, based upon their biases

> Not the correctness of the US judiciary system itself

It's literally their job to do work within the system. The SCotUS is explicitly restricted to interpreting the laws that already exist and were passed by existing legislatures. If you want massive, sweeping changes in the structure and nature of a law, you need to go to the legislature or otherwise pick up rifle and start a revolution. It is not the job of SCotUS to create new law. That's why they get so much flack for "legislating from the bench" when they make sweeping decisions. They're not supposed to do that, and they typically only do when making rulings surrounding the Constitution itself and it's Amendments.

Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams both give examples of poker. Imagine a standard Poker game where everyone knows the rule, some win some lose and yet there are no fights. Change the Poker game rules such that the dealer can change the rules at his whim and we will have fights (even though the dealer might not actually affect anyone's earnings).

SCOTUS not going out of their way is good for society.

And that’s exactly what we got. I urge you to look into what the legislative branch does and look into constitutional amendments. The system changes all of the time.

Based on your description of the GOP, you sound upset that the country isn’t more socialist. That’s hardly related to the representatives having the ability to change laws.

>Then why do the laws not reflect the wishes of the public?

This isn’t a direct democracy. The law reflects the super majority of the representatives/senators or the majority of the representatives/senators and the president.

The entire purpose of that is to prevent small majorities from steamrolling in laws. 60% for legalization or whatever topic you want isn’t enough to make a federal law changes if the majority isn’t spread around all of the states as well.

Obama didn’t even want gay marriage when he went into office. People elected him again anyway. I think most of your confusion comes from the fact that you don’t understand representative democracies.

And then even on top of that, the majority leader won't allow a vote unless he thinks the president will support it.

So there are multiple levels something has to go through before it can even get a vote.

Every single person will have some sort of bias. We are all human. Sometimes the court will 'lean' left, sometimes it will lean right. Over the years it has been an anchor of reason and stability that is very much appreciated by this American.

What makes you think the judges are the ones who actually do all that research, thought, and reasoning? They all have a staff to do that for them.

Somewhat irritatingly, I (and a large number of other American Citizens) cannot ever become president because we were not citizens at birth.

I'll not argue as to the correctness or morality of such a requirement.

I understand. It's just something that is frustrating. Having two classes of citizenship is something that affects many parts of life, especially if you decide on a career doing anything that requires a security clearance.

Ask anyone "convicted" of a felony. "Accused" of a mental disorder.

I put the scare quotes because most convictions are plea bargains that the accused are bullied into by prosecutors and police stacking and inflating charges and the overall lack of competent and affordable legal representation.

Laws are being passed now that permit the suspension of constitutional rights without due process if you are accused of or ever seek help for many mental disorders.

Sensationalistic fear of the 'boogeyman' has destroyed many of our political processes.

There's a clause that explicitly bans religious tests for federal public office[1], and a landmark SCOTUS case clarified that state governments cannot do this either[2].

1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause

2: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins

No, in addition to the clause which directly prohibits religious tests, there is no clause which does anything like that; the required oath or affirmation is:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

No supreme being required or even directly relevant. You may be confusing the Presidency with Alcoholics Anonymous, which requires acknowledging a “higher power”.

I do that all the time.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That’s it.

“So help me god” is not part of it, despite some tradition. Not all presidents have used bibles or sworn to a god.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_Presiden...

Oaths of office for other federal positions do contain the phrase "so help me God," but so far as I know there has never been a problem omitting it; I had several friends in Federal service do so.

Quite the opposite. The first amendment's establishment clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion, i.e., forcing religious on someone.

Thankfully, blind allegations with no substantiation aren't enough to ruin a whole careers worth of earned respect.

And apparently, neither is lying during your sworn testimony to Congress.

Hundreds of US law professors disagree with you about that respect.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/02/brett-kavana...

No, it really doesn't. It takes backing from powerful politicians and/or lobbyists. Respect doesn't enter into it.

If that were true, more justices would ascend to the court quite close to their deaths. In reality, it's maybe half a life, less if you subtract youth.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh#Sexual_assault...

Few positions are more important, and fewer still require a higher standard of morality than a supreme court position. Why settle for less than a spotless record? The person should be beyond reproach, so much so that an invalid allegation could be easily dismissed(during the confirmation, or any time afterwards).

You are placing someone in a position where they are able to influence lives of countless people, with repercussions that can span generations.

How much a candidate raises has been correlated to ability to win.

That eliminates anyone that can’t raise money.

And Kavanaugh’s nomination casts doubt on the third statement. You can be a vile POS, but become a SCOTUS judge so long as you’re networked with the right people.

Key word being correlated. Winners raise more money in large part because people donate to candidates they think will win. So your third statement is technically true, but in a very uninteresting way that you probably didn't intend.