Are Supreme Court justices appointed for life? Yes, as are the judges for other federal courts, and they can serve until death or retirement. It means they’re in theory insulated from the whims of the political branches. But it doesn’t make the justices popular: Current polls show that fewer than one-third of Americans have confidence in the court. Can Supreme Court justices be removed? Yes, via impeachment – the same process used to remove a US president. The House would vote to impeach, and the Senate would have a trial and vote on whether to remove the justice. It’s never happened for a Supreme Court justice, however 。。。 Are Supreme Court decisions final? Yes, in the sense that they can’t be overturned by another body. But no, in the sense that the court can overturn or change its own precedent over time, as it did with odious decisions allowing racial segregation or with last month’s reversal of the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, which had guarantee the constitutional right to obtain an abortion. Can Congress overrule decisions? Not directly, but Congress can pass laws that respond to rulings. For instance, the court ruled in 2007 that Lilly Ledbetter had not filed an equal pay discrimination complaint within the allowed time period (because she had not discovered the discrepancy until years later). President Barack Obama signed a law in 2009 that eliminated those previous restrictions. What about amending the Constitution? The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, so amending the document changes how the court is able to rule. But amending the Constitution is a herculean political task requiring, in theory, mass public support, which doesn’t exist for either party at the moment. Are Supreme Court justices elected? No. They’re appointed by the president, and then sent to the Senate to be confirmed. How many justices are there and who appointed them? Nine. Each has an equal vote. Chief Justice John Roberts (George W. Bush, 2005). Justice Clarence Thomas (George H.W. Bush, 1991). Justice Samuel Alito (GWB, 2006). Justice Sonia Sotomayor (Barack Obama, 2009). Justice Elena Kagan (Obama, 2010). Justice Neil Gorsuch (Donald Trump, 2017). Justice Brett Kavanaugh (Trump, 2018). Justice Amy Coney Barrett (Trump, 2020). Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (Joe Biden, 2022). Why do some presidents get to appoint more than others? Luck and politics. Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama each served for eight years and got two justices confirmed each. Trump served one term and appointed three: one because Obama’s final nominee in 2016 was blocked by Republicans, one due to a retirement and one, just before the 2020 presidential election, due to the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Are there any requirements to be a justice? No. It’s most common for nominees to now have strong legal pedigrees (Ivy League law school, experience clerking for previous justices or experience on federal appeals courts) but none of that is required. Kagan was a Harvard Law professor and solicitor general (a top Justice Department attorney) but was never a judge. The late Chief Justice Earl Warren had been the governor of California. Are Supreme Court justices appointed for life? Yes, as are the judges for other federal courts, and they can serve until death or retirement. It means they’re in theory insulated from the whims of the political branches. But it doesn’t make the justices popular: Current polls show that fewer than one-third of Americans have confidence in the court.
that's right.. They probably never knew about California Prop 8, where the voter passed a ban of gay marriage. That's right! It was 2008 in California.. But the government and the court overturned that.. Did the 黄左 think that's undemocratic?
In 1994, Majority of voters in California passed Proposition 187, where it restricts undocumented immigrants from the state’s public services, including access to public education and healthcare. And guess what, it was overturned by the courts.. Did the 黄左 think that's undemocratic?
你这是中国带出来的思想。。 世界上， 只有四个国家， allow abortion on demand all the way up to birth.. 其中两个是中国和朝鲜。。。 不把人命当人命的地方。。。 你觉得恶心， 我觉得民主。。 nothing is more democratic than letting the voters of that state to decide on the legislation of abortion..
堕胎也要有个度。。 unlimited abortion, on demand, all the way until birth肯定不是民意。。。 你自己去看看有那些国家让abortion on demand all the way until birth 的。。 btw， 要说民意，have you heard about California Prop 8, where the voter passed a ban of gay marriage. That's right! It was 2008 in California.. and people voted to ban gay marriage.. But the government and the court overturned that.. Did you think that's undemocratic?
据《国会山报》报道，倡导自由主义的组织MoveOn提出了这项请愿书，并指出托马斯是 否认堕胎权这一宪法权利存在的法官之一。请愿书还抨击托马斯的妻子曾密谋推翻2020 年大选结果一事，“种种事件表明，托马斯无法成为公正的联邦最高法院法官。托马斯 更关心的是掩盖他妻子推翻2020年总统大选结果的企图。托马斯必须辞职，否则国会必 须对其进行调查，并将其弹劾。”截至当地时间7月1日晚，已有超过786000人签署请愿 书。
报道指出，托马斯的现任妻子弗吉尼亚·托马斯曾对前总统特朗普表达支持。在美国国 会正对国会山骚乱事件进行调查之际，弗吉尼亚公开支持特朗普、否认现总统拜登当选 。弗吉尼亚还曾与特朗普的律师通信，这位律师负责起草有关推翻2020年总统大选结果 计划的备忘录。
报道称，美国民主党众议员亚历山大里亚·奥卡西奥-科特兹（Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez）等议员表示，如果有大法官在堕胎权问题上“误导了”他人，就应该面临一定 后果，包括被弹劾。6月24日，美国联邦最高法院推翻近半个世纪前在联邦层面确立堕 胎权的判例“罗诉韦德案”，这意味着女性堕胎权将不再受美国宪法保护。支持推翻“ 罗诉韦德案”的保守派大法官托马斯、阿利托、戈萨奇、卡瓦诺和巴雷特等人在此前各 自的提名听证会都回避了是否会推翻该案的问题，或是表明自己不支持推翻先前判例。 但在此次裁决结果公布后，这些人遭到了批评。
Can Supreme Court justices be removed? Yes, via impeachment – the same process used to remove a US president. The House would vote to impeach, and the Senate would have a trial and vote on whether to remove the justice. It’s never happened for a Supreme Court justice, however 。。。
Are Supreme Court decisions final? Yes, in the sense that they can’t be overturned by another body. But no, in the sense that the court can overturn or change its own precedent over time, as it did with odious decisions allowing racial segregation or with last month’s reversal of the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, which had guarantee the constitutional right to obtain an abortion.
Can Congress overrule decisions? Not directly, but Congress can pass laws that respond to rulings. For instance, the court ruled in 2007 that Lilly Ledbetter had not filed an equal pay discrimination complaint within the allowed time period (because she had not discovered the discrepancy until years later). President Barack Obama signed a law in 2009 that eliminated those previous restrictions.
What about amending the Constitution? The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, so amending the document changes how the court is able to rule. But amending the Constitution is a herculean political task requiring, in theory, mass public support, which doesn’t exist for either party at the moment.
Are Supreme Court justices elected? No. They’re appointed by the president, and then sent to the Senate to be confirmed.
How many justices are there and who appointed them? Nine. Each has an equal vote. Chief Justice John Roberts (George W. Bush, 2005). Justice Clarence Thomas (George H.W. Bush, 1991). Justice Samuel Alito (GWB, 2006). Justice Sonia Sotomayor (Barack Obama, 2009). Justice Elena Kagan (Obama, 2010). Justice Neil Gorsuch (Donald Trump, 2017). Justice Brett Kavanaugh (Trump, 2018). Justice Amy Coney Barrett (Trump, 2020). Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (Joe Biden, 2022).
Why do some presidents get to appoint more than others? Luck and politics. Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama each served for eight years and got two justices confirmed each. Trump served one term and appointed three: one because Obama’s final nominee in 2016 was blocked by Republicans, one due to a retirement and one, just before the 2020 presidential election, due to the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Are there any requirements to be a justice? No. It’s most common for nominees to now have strong legal pedigrees (Ivy League law school, experience clerking for previous justices or experience on federal appeals courts) but none of that is required. Kagan was a Harvard Law professor and solicitor general (a top Justice Department attorney) but was never a judge. The late Chief Justice Earl Warren had been the governor of California.
Are Supreme Court justices appointed for life? Yes, as are the judges for other federal courts, and they can serve until death or retirement. It means they’re in theory insulated from the whims of the political branches. But it doesn’t make the justices popular: Current polls show that fewer than one-third of Americans have confidence in the court.
美国的体制 真是复杂
哎
宗主国英国国王贵族造反相互砍头， 教父法国革命失败复辟路易砍头人民英雄流放， 这些吓坏了美国之父们。 所以搞出三权分立的复杂机制。
他被称作black white supremacist.
三权分立本质上没什么问题。 问题是美国两党恶斗， 立法机关裹足不前。 思想统一了，修改宪法也是piece of cake.
纯粹浪费时间， 根本没戏。
查到两个可以签名的地方
1, changes.org https://www.change.org/p/remove-clarence-thomas-from-teaching-at-gw
2, moveon https://sign.moveon.org/petitions/clarence-thomas-must-go
这是用力用错了地方
高院推翻 R V 也是合法的， 符合程序的。
这是经典的合法的未必合理的例子， 控枪也一样。
没办法。 民主的死结。 狗屁党控制一半 参议院， 根本没有任何可能。
以前不是说，程序正义重要于结果正义么？
白左，就是这个德性。只要自己对结果不满意，既可以诋毁程序正义。
that's right..
They probably never knew about California Prop 8, where the voter passed a ban of gay marriage. That's right! It was 2008 in California..
But the government and the court overturned that..
Did the 黄左 think that's undemocratic?
你去开一个就是了
And guess what, it was overturned by the courts..
Did the 黄左 think that's undemocratic?
可怕可怕，这样子肯定内战了。
20年都没到， 男生在学校里面， 已经可以去女生shower。 男的， 已经可以参加女的体育比赛
你们这些黄左， 就别来吓唬人了。 要说你们的slippery slope， 那才是最厉害的
自从 2004 年左右， gay marriage legalize 以后， LGBT什么pride week 变为pride month， 20年都还没到， 现在已经是小孩都可以做transexual surgeries。。 不需要家长同意。 20年都还没到， 现在小孩在学校天天被gay， transgender 的洗脑。 20年都没到， they/them 竟然变为单数的gender 名称，email上面还都要有个she/her的括弧！
20年都没到， 男生在学校里面， 已经可以去女生shower。 男的， 已经可以参加女的体育比赛
你们这些黄左， 就别来吓唬人了。 要说你们的slippery slope， 那才是最厉害的
你这是中国带出来的思想。。 世界上， 只有四个国家， allow abortion on demand all the way up to birth.. 其中两个是中国和朝鲜。。。
不把人命当人命的地方。。。
你觉得恶心， 我觉得民主。。 nothing is more democratic than letting the voters of that state to decide on the legislation of abortion..
因为目前已知的只有他老婆那有一屁股💩没擦干净
滚吧，要真民主有本事让全美人民投票，我就不信反堕胎是民意。
说到程序不正义，反民主 是美国任命最高法官方式，一个总统可以为所欲为，操纵遗害一个国家几十年 这是最大不民主不正义
btw，这个Pelosi是个李鬼，六耳猕猴，西贝货。
堕胎也要有个度。。 unlimited abortion, on demand, all the way until birth肯定不是民意。。。
你自己去看看有那些国家让abortion on demand all the way until birth 的。。
btw， 要说民意，have you heard about California Prop 8, where the voter passed a ban of gay marriage. That's right! It was 2008 in California.. and people voted to ban gay marriage..
But the government and the court overturned that..
Did you think that's undemocratic?
我同意啊。。gay marriage 和 unlimited abortion都是supreme court 给的 而不是选民给的
现在supreme court把 abortion这个issue还给了选民
你是不是觉得supreme court也应该把gay marriage issue也还给选民了？
这样， 2008 年 California 选民ban gay marriage 的事情， 是不是就成CA 的法律了？
手动置底连署连结，不要淹在口水战中。 民主国家中，让谁上是民意；谁干得不合民意，让谁下也是选民的权利。 只要不是一枪蹦了，谁上谁下都是程序正义。 不管有用没用，发出声音才会得到重视。
怎么能忘记床铺。一起加进来！
1 roe vs wade这个法案，是在1973年通过的 在这之前，堕胎需要认可是否合法，合宗教。 不管现在的华人是否认可这一点，美国确实是 建立在一个以宗教为基点的国家。
2 当时的 roe vs wade案，是法等法院warren burger为主大法官，我们叫那段时间为warren 王朝。warren大法官时期，很多案例是倾向于 当时流行的自由主义思潮。那个时期也是美军 进入越南的越战时期。经济开始低迷。
3 roe vs wade这个case虽然当时呈现到高等法 院，但是根据宪法，大法官只负责解释宪法那 21条，而21条，只有修正案第14条，关于基本 权利有引申到隐私权里，这个其实在法律上是 非常模糊的，因为这个条款在法律上，和“实质 性正当程序”和“ 程序性正当程序”，内在是矛盾 但是表面有统一。但是高院在warren大法官的 主导下，还是接了这个case, 这也符合当时一部 分人要退出越战的思潮。
4 美国在70年代到80年，一直处于经济低迷合 新自由主义泛滥的滞涨，精神和物质虚无的阶段。 直到80年以保守派为主的里根总统执政，美国才 又渐渐走出了当前的阴影。
5 新自由主义1992年又开始展露，以克林顿政府 为主的期间，但是那时候因为新兴产业的兴起， 经济一片繁荣，而对诸多思想容易接受。但是现在 由于极端激进，再加上经济和战争，高等法院也 呈现出了以宪法为宗旨，紧紧粘结宪法的趋向。
6 我深刻认为，目前美国现状和当时的情况有几分 相同。而对于高等法院，他们是把他们认为的，不 属于宪法或者宪法有异议的case给拒绝了，这些包 括选举，移民。
宪法修正案第14条，实在是给高院找了诸多麻烦。 有要求罢免大法官的，我认为这个诉求就算跑到 在参议院，那些学法律的议员，就会产生很多争端。