Scalia, Religious Neutrality

[Excited Penguin]

It's unthinkable that you can have a justice like that. What a fucked up system you must have to get one of that sort in such a position of power.

[Joods]

Money talks EP. It would seem here in the US, you can get whatever you want if you have enough money to buy off a person or a group of people.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Absent a high crime or misdemeanor, SC Justices cannot be removed from office, constitutionally.

I see thanks. Surely this is ridiculous? In England we have similarly unelected House of Lords members, who are probably just as hard to remove.

It's scary they're not even required to understand the constitution...

No, there's a good reason for it. The Constitution is designed to protect minorities from majorities, in its Bill of Rights, for instance. Should the Court make a decision which enrages the majority, if there were a legal way to remove them, the consideration of such an outcome might well have an effect upon the decision being handed down. Justices might be afraid to apply the law impartially if they thought it might cost them their jobs.

Indeed, at the state here here in America, we have seen exactly that happen to justices, most infamously in the case of Rose Bird, the former Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court who was removed from office by the voters after a partisan and less-than-honest campaign. In her case, she was anti-death penalty, and had voted to overturn 61 of the 64 cases she had heard. Conservative ideologues mounted a well-financed campaign against her and two other Associate Justices which had them removed from office back in the 80s.

In other words, the lifetime tenure of the SCOTUS Justices is designed to shield them from the vagaries of popular opinion. It's certainly imperfect, as Justice Scabies insists upon showing time and again, but the alternative in my opinion has worse results.

As an aside, I had been under the impression that the HoL was a largely powerless body. What functions do they provide as part of your Parliament?

[robvalue]

I see, thanks for the explanation

I'm not too up on these things, but I think the HoL has a big say in how and when laws are changed. They're also meant to hold the elected government to account.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I see, thanks for the explanation

I'm not too up on these things, but I think the HoL has a big say in how and when laws are changed. They're also meant to hold the elected government to account.

Rather than derail the thread I'll go do some reading. Thanks!

[TheRealJoeFish]

Did you know that Pennsylvania is the fifth most corrupt state in the US? I also heard that if you're an atheist in PA, you can't hold an elected office. I'm not sure how true that is, but if so, I call bullshit.

I believe that law is technically still on the books but is, of course, monstrously unenforceable

[robvalue]

Yeah, regarding the law, Matt D said it "has no teeth".

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Quote " To tell you the truth there is no place for that in our constitutional tradition. Where did that come from?" he said. "To be sure, you can't favor one denomination over another but can't favor religion over non-religion?"

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/U...TE=DEFAULT

I'm going to dance in the street if that pile of shit croaks before I do.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

It's unthinkable that you can have a justice like that. What a fucked up system you must have to get one of that sort in such a position of power.

The only people who can get on the Supreme Court are Jews and Catholics.

[vorlon13]

Fuck Scalia and his fucking catholicism and his fucking religio-fascist attitude.