I hear you, jbrenner. I won't bore you with a tearful rendition of how devastated I felt when we lost in our push for COS legislation here in Arizona during the last legislative session. What made it even more unbearable - even embarrassing - was that of the two major COS movements, one of them (the Compact for America's Balanced Budget Amendment, sponsored by the Goldwater Institute) is based right here in the state, and even it couldn't survive the pocket-veto of the Senate president!

Yes, disappointment is a very real impediment to action. I had to take some time off... actually, I'm still a little bit AWOL from my usual haunts. I like to think that I'm just "fine-tuning" my advocacy. :)

Thank you, by the way, for sharing your personal struggles... for what it's worth, it gives me a better frame of reference when trying to understand another's position... it becomes a "point of view" as opposed to simply a "reaction."

LOL... I guess I'm still infected (or affected)... I've referred to myself as a "recovering Catholic" for the last 50 years... looks like I have a ways to go yet. ;)

Very provocative remarks, iamA2u... particularly regarding the political independence of the justices. You've caused me to pause and reconsider a position that, until now, I've been comfortable with for quite some time.

I have been open to term limits for all federal officials, including judges at all levels. I've even entertained Mark Levin's suggestion of doing away with the 9 Black Robes entirely and moving to a European model, wherein each state legislature would appoint a judge for a limited term, making a court of 50 judges en banc, but cases rising from the appellate level would be heard by panels of, say, 5 or 7 judges in rotation, thus spreading the inevitable political bias of thinking human beings around instead of locking it in for the life of every confirmed justice.

I need to think about this... is it better to relegate the influence of political bias to a "lottery," or should we just stay with what we know and do what we can to introduce more accountability, as you say, at the front end during the nomination and confirmation process?

At this moment, my gut tells me that either would be better than what we have.

Some lawyer somewhere will figure out a way in which these amendments violate other aspects of the Constitution. While you are correct, it may not matter.

Any amendment, once ratified, is de facto "constitutional", and cannot be declared otherwise by any court, not even by unanimous vote of the parties to the original ratification. If it were to fall into disfavor, it would have to be repealed.

The concept of an independent judiciary is an illusion. When judges are appointed by politicians, how can one expect an independent judiciary? Even at the lower levels such as the State of Florida (or even county elections), the State Bar of Florida prevents both judges and candidates for judge positions from taking positions. That gives the appearance of impartiality. I get that. But how is someone expected to make an educated selection of a judge when you don't know what their values are?

That would be very well received.

Yup.

Thanks.

10-4

You may have a point there... and I'm starting to suspect that you're attempting to drive that point home by way of illustration.

Couldn't agree more, jbrenner... selective enforcement should have consequences, and they should be clear and swift.

We don't just need amendments... we need amendments with teeth!

That is the way that it should be, but political favors will be called in, donations made under the table, etc. to ensure at least delay if not defeat of the CoS. Politicians have no interest in CoS because it does not empower them.

At the moment, I am undecided on term limits for judges. I am still wrestling with the concept of "an independent judiciary" and how any changes might effect that. As with most things of grave importance, I suspect that my opinion will evolve as I examine the matter further.

As for your comment about the Democrats going "judge shopping," I'll repeat here an earlier post:
- - -

I've just been advised that no court at any level would accept the case... a Convention of States enjoys the same political status as does a state legislature or the US Congress... the courts, and particularly the SCOTUS, have a long-standing practice of adhering to the "political question" doctrine.

"The political question doctrine holds that some questions, in their nature, are fundamentally political, and not legal, and if a question is fundamentally political, then the court will refuse to hear that case. It will claim that it doesn't have jurisdiction. And it will leave that question to some other aspect of the political process to settle out." J.E. Finn, Prof of Govt

Yes, they will... as long as you continue to let them.

I agree with you 100%, and "unfortunate error" has to be the understatement of the decade!

Since the Senate no longer represents the priorities of the states but those of the political parties, the confirmation process has devolved into nothing more than a minute or two of grandstanding and political posturing, followed immediately by the dull thud of a rubber stamp.

Maybe I'm naive and it's always been this way, but confirmations now are the stuff of vote-counting and back room quid pro quo.

By the way, unless I'm mistaken, I think it's always been 50%+1 for confirmation of a SC justice. The only part of the confirmation process that required a supermajority was to break a filibuster, and that's what they did away with.

Article V is a powerful weapon of next to last resort. I hope it works. The enemy we are fighting has vampiric regeneration, multiple heads and tentacles like a hydra, and will break any rules to achieve their objectives.

Wow... you guys really don't get it, do you. It's almost like you don't WANT to get it. I'd swear you almost get it for about 2½ minutes, then one or the other of you breaks down and says something defeatist and, just like that, >snap<, the both of you cave.

And just between us guys, the bullet analogy really sucks!

We're not late to the battle with no bullets... we haven't even BEGUN to fight! There IS no battle, and that's the problem! We've been acting like a bunch of sheep, going to the ballot box when we're told, voting how we're told, and expecting that somehow things are going to change all by themselves and change for the better.

Well we're done with that. No more Mr. Nice Guy. We're tired of being the only ones playing by the rules, and we're going to do something about it. As a matter of fact, we're going to change the rules, and we're going to start a war to do it. Best part is, we have as many bullets as they do!

You want an analogy? I'll give you an analogy: Article V is the armory where the bullets are stored, got that? Bullets are what's used in the battle to amend the Constitution. The Constitution has been amended 27 times, each time by them, and each time under the auspices of (and with ammo supplied by) Article V. The quartermaster at the Article V armory, CMSgt G. Mason, says that the requisitions for their ammo and our ammo are equal. No more, no less, exactly equal amounts of bullets.

So whaddaya say, ladies...? Personally, I think it's about time to lock and load.

PS to the NSA: We're not talking real bullets or violence of any kind here, fellas... Google "analogy" and "common sense"

I mostly disagree. This independence gives them freedom from the capricious political process. I certainly disagree with many SCOTUS opinions but I wholeheartedly endorse their independence. in fact I believe independence is the only functional way for them to fulfill their constitutional duties. can you imagine the pressure they would be under, and subsequent poor decisions, if politics influenced them during the McCarthy era or during the Nixon troubles or even currently with the abuse of power?

The accountability is with the original presidential appointment and the Senate confirmation hearings to seat quality judges. The cancellation of the Senate policy of having a super majority for the Supreme Court nominations is an unfortunate error in this regard.

Both the individuals enforcing (or not enforcing) the law and the law itself granting favors are problems right now.

Rim, click on your name top right corner. A dropdown box will show. Click settings. There is only one option. Producer or not. You can control other settings as well.

“When a government selectively enforces or chooses not to enforce certain laws, the loss of respect for the entire system is profound.”

I see your point, but in reality it is actual people in power that choose to follow a law, subvert a law or ignore a law. Most others down the chain just follow orders from these individuals. It would be these "lower" individuals that would have to use their minds and judge if the morally of the orders received would cause them to state, “Your orders are wrong!” Could a society where public servants could actually question their superiors really work? If so, maybe that GM law breaking fiasco would never have happened.
On the other side, what if it is the official law of a society to give some great favors to one race over another, and orders of compliance were passed down the chain of authority? Maybe, with enough individual resistance to these kinds of orders early on, one of the greatest catastrophes in history would never have happened.

And they are not accountable at all once appointed to SCOTUS.

True enough. SCOTUS is accountable only VERY indirectly via presidential and senatorial elections.