How many feel it would be possible and profitable for all members of the Supreme Court to have no party affiliation and swear in their oath to render decisions based on the U. S. Constitution alone?
U S Supreme Court ?
- Thread starter D. Denzil Finney
- Start date
What do you think they do now?
"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Since, as noted by another, we already have an oath that, if taken seriously, addresses exactly what you reference.. 'Taken seriously' is the major point of contention. I propose another alteration. Age limits should be imposed. Ruth Ginsberg knows not where she is, let alone render a reasonable decision. When justices reach an advanced age it is time for them to retire or be retired. I truly hope that 3 or 4 decide to hang it up during the Trump administration and we can get justices who see their responsibilities as defined within the constitution as ones who interpret passed laws was relative to that which is contained within the Constitution and not a stretch to make the Constitution inclusive of limited, vague attachments that allow the 'bench' to, in essence, create a law where one has never existed.
And with your saying that, do you think they impartially discharge their duties -- Why are Donkeys and Elephants always at odds as to who can serve and who cannot?
No chance. We are all human. It today's society, there is not ONE person who can separate themselves from their personal beliefs. It didn't happen 200 years ago, and it ain't happening today. I mean look at the 1850's.....the Court had the opportunity to do the "right thing" with Dred Scott and screwed the pooch there big time. Then again in the 1890's with Homer Plessy........
