59 Comments
11/20/2015 01:05:23 pm
I notice that the author of the piece delves heavily into the fact that the justices are more rooted in the law rather than noticing the political impacts of their deliberation. However, I feel that them, by not necessary having a political atmosphere ensures a lack of being biased because they do not necessarily delve into a certain affiliation and thus a certain mindset that could potentially dictate their rulings on certain cases. And, law aficionados not having the public accomplishments, we don't want our Supreme Court to necessarily be popular so much as knowledgeable in constitutional law, i.e. public opinion doesn't dictate the good judges or law experts from the bad one's necessarily.
Reply
Yvette Gagum
11/24/2015 06:23:00 pm
You do have to remember that the speaker is, themself, a Judge of some sort and has their own views of justice, so some bias is included in the speech. But other than some details the piece is mostly unbiased and, like you said, has some good points and some not so good ones
Reply
11/24/2015 08:21:45 pm
The advice you gave is good, but I honestly don't see a mass shift in public opinion happening soon. Because of Kramer's polarization idea, for every shift in sides the people become more extreme. We see this, especially now when we can have nominees such as Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders doing well in such polls. I don't mean this in negative context, but I am just trying to point out that both stand for the extremes of the parties they are running for. Back a couple of decades, I would assume that such extremes would not be able to even make it so far in the primary polls alone. However, this is based on if the idea of polarization is correct. As the people become more extreme, only those with extreme views would get the most support. Lets just hope that the fighting doesn't get to an even more extreme point in our later lives for now.
Reply
Payson Harris
11/29/2015 07:52:30 pm
I agree with Robert, and not just because he is #1 in our class. I agree with him because the justices are not supposed to be worrying about the popular opinion about them; that is the point of appointing them for life. Regarding your solution, a mass shift in public opinion is definitely the only way to fix this problem, but I don't see any way to change that quickly unless there is some event soon that shocks the people into sudden change.
Reply
Andie Stockwell
12/3/2015 08:23:08 pm
I agree with Robert. Beause he is #1 in our class.
Deanna Strayer
11/30/2015 10:14:22 am
I think a mass change in opinion is possible, but maybe not probable at this point.
Reply
Yvette Gagum
11/24/2015 06:13:04 pm
This piece is from a speech made to what seems like civics teachers and instructors explaining why our government is so messed up and how we can fix it, with kids like us I suppose. I have no idea what to say (-_- : ) Um I guess I should say that I agree with the speaker in that Government Classes are a good way to encourage students to help fix the government, but at the same time we shouldn't set all the responsibility to the students, but the adults in congress should try to make the government more about the country and less about the politics.
Reply
11/24/2015 08:11:21 pm
Sadly, as much as they should, that will take a lot for it to happen. People in high ranking offices tend to not only have their own interests, but their party's interests as well behind them, so re-election is what is deemed more important to them. It would take a lot of guts to stray from your own personal agenda and your party's to better the country. Once that happens, the said person also looses support and would most likely lose re-election as well. I do agree that all of the civics learning shouldn't be placed on just us kids. We have enough work as it is.... Probably just implement is a little at a time until it reaches an acceptable standard. For now though, lets just hope we are some of knows who DO know that the Constitution is the law of the land.
Reply
Payson Harris
11/29/2015 08:01:46 pm
I don't think that opinions should be taught in government classes, even if it could be helpful to the nation in some way. School is supposed to be for facts and teaching children to find their own facts and truths. If students want to be politically active then they can, but there shouldn't be people getting paid to try to make them.
Reply
Madeline Arbogast
11/30/2015 10:28:03 am
I think it is important to teach kids facts and opinions because no one is going to be completely unbiased when they teach; I just think it's also important to make sure kids are presented with both sides of the argument that way they can use that information to form their own opinion.
Reply
Barter
12/2/2015 08:08:11 am
It seems on some topics facts have been obscured as opinion. But yes, facts must be taught and in a perfect scenario opinions on both sides discussed. I see your frustration in his answer however, there's really no way to get the adults to solve their errors. Is there a suggestion for changing the minds of the members of congress. Brainwashing kids is easier than changing a stubborn old person set in their ways...
Reply
11/24/2015 08:06:09 pm
This was a very interesting article for me. It was overall a "call to action" piece, with the normal "we need your help" finish. That seems in respect kind of bland, but what interested me were the relations of our current Supreme Court to a form of polyarchy. Yes, I did mean polyarchy, and I meant it in the use of Robert Dahl's terminology. The Supreme Court has been growing in power over the decades that is a given, but I never truly stopped and thought about what that entailed. The power to declare something 'unconstitutional' is a very powerful tool. The fact that we are putting people on the Supreme Court who are known for nothing aside from being lawyers and letting them use that said power is unsettling. I understand that putting people who have much experience in the law and had jobs that was based around the interpretation of those same laws is useful for judges. However, because they have no prior experience to holding such power and operating under such conditions, it is right to assume that their verdicts on cases would stem from their own ideology of the world. That alone already influences decisions based on how they were raised and makes the decisions skewed towards the side that they favor, eliminating a truly neutral decision. However, there is not much we can do about it as people will always come to cases with their own personal biases, and the citizens have become so used to how our fracturing political system works as of the moment that trying to get the support of people willing to fight and change it for the better would require something of a high to phenomenal scale. Aside from that the "dinner talk" was nice, although we probably should start investing a little more into ethics. Pretty funny how almost approximately half of the population doesn't know historical facts of the place they live, advocate, and fight for. Now that is some patriotism.
Reply
Yvette Gagum
11/24/2015 08:39:17 pm
I agree, the way that our country and society works, people don't really actively involve themselves in Government without some selfish reason, be it personal gain or a grade for some class, aside a handful of those who do care. Some people are really passionate about something like government and they can do things like, for example, the We the People competition. Others wouldn't even know what the phrase "We the People" comes from. There is a gap between those who care and those who could care less, and there should be some sort of movement to try to lessen that gap and improve the interest in government. We need to involve Supreme Court justices that are willing to do so and have the knowledge and experience to help do what is right, in a civic way. And, who knows, maybe by lessening the gap we can remove the bias people have about the government itself and politicians.
Reply
Andie Stockwell
11/24/2015 08:54:44 pm
This is 8 pages long.
Reply
Imelda
11/25/2015 08:03:45 am
I agree
Reply
Deanna Strayer
11/30/2015 10:05:18 am
Same
Madeline Arbogast
11/30/2015 10:00:44 am
True
Reply
Deanna Strayer
11/30/2015 10:05:58 am
Accurate
Barter
12/2/2015 08:09:26 am
Quit your whining!
Reply
Barter
12/2/2015 08:25:31 am
Does not count as a comment.
Reply
Lupita
12/2/2015 08:38:14 pm
Way to rain on everyone's parade Bart. I think it is important for adults to be educated enough about government to know what their personal duty is in society to make our government successful. More Americans need to be involved and sure about their opinions for elected officials in power to more easily interpret public opinion. This would make it so these officials could more accurately make decisions that reflect the public's will.
Reply
11/25/2015 09:37:27 am
I think it's important for us to perhaps reevaluate life sentenced appointments on the Supreme Court. After a while I imagine it's easy to lose contact with the public and the modern values and opinions from the public.
Reply
11/30/2015 12:10:39 am
What do you believe the appointment length should be in the case of supreme court judges then? Do you think that would drastically change how judges or chosen? In any case the appointment length would have to be somewhat lengthy say at least 10 years but even then the supreme court would be much more subject to change and political interference.
Reply
Deanna Strayer
11/30/2015 10:16:32 am
I think maybe 20 years would be appropriate with only 1 term possible.
I disagree, the fact that the members of the Supreme Court don't have to worry about their term service is what makes the Court as unbiased as it is. Because these people are meant to reflect the constitution not the fickle will of the people there life
12/1/2015 09:58:49 am
Reply
Jeremy Bessett
12/1/2015 09:59:55 am
That anonymous comment was Jerbear BTW.
Barter
12/2/2015 08:10:57 am
All caps is - 4567 points.
Payson Harris
11/29/2015 07:36:43 pm
I actually disagree with this guy about one thing, and that is his assertion that Supreme Court justices should be political figures. I disagree with this because I don't think it should be their job to hear issues that go beyond legality because that is policy making, and that job was given to the Legislative branch. Therefore, lawyers are the perfect people for the position of Supreme Court justices because the job of lawyers is to know and apply the law and the job of the Supreme Court is supposed to be just to apply and interpret the law. Of course that is not the case today, and as long as the Supreme Court is going to go beyond its duties it should have people experienced in policy making since that is what it has taken upon itself to do
Reply
11/30/2015 07:40:37 am
I see your frustration as well as everyone's frustration in the statement that justices should be political figures however, i dont think that it is a complete disgrace of a comment. I say this because lawyers are perfectly fine, however that is theoretically. There are variant opinions in theory and practice. Lawyers interpret the laws based off of clients but never get to see the policies and how they can affect millions of people. However, politicians can see the ripple of policies and laws that no other form can see. So, maybe the point is more valid than people give credit to when people argue that politicians should be justices.
Reply
Barter
12/2/2015 08:12:13 am
Can any person truly be apolitical? "If men were Angels....
Reply
11/30/2015 12:08:08 am
I find it interesting that Kramer make his first complaint towards the unpolitical stature of supreme court judges today when it is those of political stature that are most at fault of the partisan issue he speaks of. If the supreme court is comprised of non-political bushy tailed lawyers who have not been tainted by the slow creeping poison of the political system all the better it will allow them to make non-partisan rulings. In fact I would argue against what he proposes the standard of what supreme court judges should look like because of the previous ideology that comes with any appointy with political stature or lengthy background.
Reply
Imelda
11/30/2015 10:20:50 am
I agree with Kramer that Supreme Court justices should have political experiences to best interpret the will of the people. Judges without political experience are not knowledgeable enough about the effects of their decisions.
Reply
Barter
12/2/2015 08:13:02 am
Bushy tailed?
Reply
11/30/2015 12:14:40 am
I think a very important argument to be made for any composition of the supreme court is the very true fact that they take cues from public opinion in many court decisions. Kramer makes the assumption that the supreme court and interpreting the constitution should be derived from the peoples will and the supreme court serves that function as is exampled in the recent cases on gay marriage.
Reply
Deanna Strayer
11/30/2015 10:12:36 am
Lawyers make great Supreme Court justices because they know the existing law and how to apply it. That's what they are there for.
Reply
Madeline Arbogast
11/30/2015 10:16:19 am
I agree with the "extra comment" because the youth of America generally is more accepting and its always the old farts saying that we need to be more like them.
Reply
Jacob Acuña
12/2/2015 03:57:33 pm
I agree with both of this comments, the youth need to be well informed and "awakened" if our country is going to survive.
Madeline Arbogast
11/30/2015 10:14:37 am
Of course, the supreme court is influenced by the times, if the supreme court makes a decision that is completely unpopular, no one is going to care about what the court says and it will essentially lose all power. Therefore, the SC has to pay attention to public opinion even though it is supposed to be separated from politics. It can't truly be separate. If we leave the old bitty's in then they're going to have to take current opinion into account anyway, regardless of what they think or what the people thought 40 years ago. They have to satisfy the law and the public, or else they risk loosing their power.
Reply
Deanna STrayer
11/30/2015 10:20:02 am
*losing
Reply
Madeline Arbogast
11/30/2015 10:21:33 am
I know. I'm sorry, world. I am not worthy.
Kynzie Watahomigie
11/30/2015 10:23:04 am
I agree with Madeline because I too believe that the SC must take into account the current circumstances. If a vote is too unpopular it could cause problems although SC justices do not have to worry about being reelected for they serve for life therefore they are more free to make decisions how they wish.
Reply
Jacqueline Fonseca
11/30/2015 10:37:50 am
I agree with Maddie because the Supreme Court gets it's power by the other branches, and if the other branches are elected by the people then those ideas do rub off on them. However, the Supreme Court also has to be influenced by the Constitution and has to be able to judge biased on the things in that and not off of the peoples opinons. In a way.
Reply
Barter
12/2/2015 08:15:07 am
On most issues the court trails public opinion. Except perhaps in Brown v Board.
Reply
Lupita
12/2/2015 08:36:43 pm
I agree with dandy, the court can't really be that separated from public opinion because they really have no power if the public doesn't listen to what they say. It's like when Andrew Jackson basically said you and what army to the supreme court. "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it". (I googled that) Without the support of the public or at least some side of the government they're kind of powerless..
Reply
Barter
12/3/2015 01:07:10 pm
Dandy?
Deanna Strayer
11/30/2015 10:18:43 am
Yeah the Supreme Court is influenced by the times but maybe not accurately. While I think young people are outspoken in regards to having protests and marches and whatnot, it's the middle aged/elderly people that actually show up to vote on things.
Reply
Lupita
12/2/2015 08:55:43 pm
This comment kind of confused me... Are you saying the court is influenced by mainly middle aged and elderly people because they vote?
Reply
Kynzie Watahomigie
11/30/2015 10:32:19 am
The author brings up the point that if students do not learn the importance of our history then they will be less likely to vote or participate in civic duties. I agree. Many young people ask for change yet fail to show up. It is sad to think that many people cannot pass the citizenship test but that is not the children's fault. In order to get young people to care, the education system should be fixed to teach about the importance of civic duties.
Reply
Jacqueline Fonseca
11/30/2015 10:35:08 am
I agree with Kynzie, because in life young people need to learn that they do have an impact in the governement. I do not think that someone should teach them the opinions that they should have. I just think that people should learn about what the government does and how they can interact with it.
Reply
Laura J
12/1/2015 10:33:49 am
I agree. I think that many students have the capacity to care and engage in politics, but because they are unaware of these issues and don't know how to participate. If the education system was reformed and could teach kids in an unbiased way, I believe we would see a large improvement in voter turnout.
Reply
Jacqueline Fonseca
11/30/2015 10:33:12 am
I disagree with Kramer in the idea that the people on the Supreme Court have to had a role in the past that had some sort of civic duty. I disagree because the nine judges on the supreme court do not have to have the ability to become elected, they have to know the Constitution's ins and outs. I also agree that the Supreme Court should stay with being elected for life. This gives them the ability to not have to worry about becoming reelected and so they can judge biased on what the law says and not want people want. I can see how that is a problem because of public opinion but the Supreme Court should not have to worry about it. They need to judge off of the law and the Constitution.
Reply
Jeremy Bessett
12/1/2015 09:52:54 am
I think that it is interesting how the Supreme Court is suppose to be an unbiased no political body. Yet the presidents have always appointed Supreme Court justices that would side with them and these people serve and retire In a politically strategic manor. No matter what we do or where we go there will always be some sort of bias. I don't believe it to be possible that we could ever be purely unbiased.
Reply
Jeremy Bessett
12/1/2015 09:56:21 am
Also I wanted to add that I agree with Kramers point that if we do not educate our people, but the youth especially, our political system will never be anything more than a 30% voter turn out. That doesn't truly represent the people's will. We need to play a proactive role in our youth understanding how our government works.
Reply
Laura J
12/1/2015 10:28:36 am
Kramer raised an excellent point about the issues regarding judicial appointment. While the people chosen are intelligent and have lead successful business lives, that doesn't necessarily mean they have the mental capacity to understand the weight behind their decisions. This can lead to shortsightedness and decisions made without a complete understanding of the topic. Judicial appointment should be made based on more than satisfying political parties - who already have an excess of influence on our government. Judges should be appointed based on merit, intelligence and previous civic interaction. They must understand the power behind their position or else these powers can lead to exploitation.
Reply
Jacob Acuña
12/2/2015 03:54:31 pm
I find it is very disheartening to have read this article and how it sheds a light into how lost our country has become. But with that, I believe that if a lengthy and concise reformation of our educational curricula that emphasizes the importance and duty of each citizen's contribution to this grand governmental experiment, and a closer look at how the problem of this "polarization" is becoming an all-or-nothing struggle between the two political parties, then our country may become a land of sharing ideas and bettering one another as was intended by the Founding Fathers.
Reply
LupitaT
12/2/2015 08:16:37 pm
Alright I'm a little late to the party but I'm here.... On the issue of the supreme court and how they are appointed I'm conflicted because a part of me believes that they should serve for life so that they are not biased trying to protect their spot on the bench. But the author brings up a good point by saying that they really aren't that focused on the law aspect of their cases recently, so maybe they shouldn't serve for life... I'm still processing this as i'm typing this so if your reading this bear with me... The justices should serve terms of a couple of years but they would all be staggered.. so the entire bench wouldn't be re-appointed at the same time, to ensure that it's equal between the political parties. On the other subject of the piece I think people really do need to educate themselves on our government because it's so easy to take advantage of anyone when they're uneducated.. And I think that's all I have to say sorry I kind of don't make sense but it made sense to me :-)
Reply
Ande Stockwell
12/3/2015 08:20:36 pm
The distinct polarization between political parties has grown to a predominant, almost defining, factor of American life. We can no longer view things in an unbiased manner because of the label attributed to a specific group of ideologies. Kramer mentions the furtherance of democracy as having no particular party, being a neutral and positive concept, and I think this is an important stance. As a country we have become so divided that advancement is subject and someone is always upset because there is no give an take; there is no concession.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
January 2020
Categories |