建议……法院在很大程度上(负责)……这是斯坦福大学法学院院长拉里·克莱默(Larry Kramer)发表的令人难以置信的言论。
And to suggest that "... unelected is more likely to mean independent.." is so non-sensible and almost painful especially if one knows - this is an enormously educated and powerful, his position effects the lives of many individuals, man stating this.
Dean Kramer I am one voter who does not despise elections as you obviously do ".. I despise judicial
elections."
关于“..我几乎总是觉得他们的候选人声明令人反感，头脑简单，旨在迎合而不是提供信息。"
Dean Kramer, I read these statements and I find them informative and at times enlightening - eagle scouts,
Sierra Club Membership, church related activities. number of children, etc. combined with judcial decisions made by the individual judges. All this information allows me to make better, if not best decisions in the voting booth.
I believe in the democratic process. The ability of the common people to voice their beliefs and to exercise through their votes a small measure of power.
Indeed, "the court system ... is in one way a bulkwark of our constitutional democracy."
Lets keep it this way.
To appoint judges and "... come with a lifetime tenure." could, in my opinion, lead so easily to a theocracy, or a philosophical dictatorship countering the freedom and rights of Americans.
Sincerely, Rosemarie Neth

THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT EXIST
In any judicial system of oversight, some courts will have no oversight power whatsoever, some courts will directly oversee other courts, while perhaps some courts will directly oversee themselves. A complete system of judicial oversight will be such that every court has some court directly overseeing it. Indeed, every complete system will have some court (call it the Supreme Court) which oversees all and only courts that do not oversee themselves.
The question arises, does the Supreme Court oversee itself? If it does not, then it cannot be the court that oversees all courts that do not oversee themselves, because there will be some court (itself) which does not oversee itself and which the Supreme Court does not oversee.
But if it does oversee itself, then the Supreme Court cannot be the court that oversees only courts that do not oversee themselves, because the Supreme Court will oversee a court (itself) that oversees itself.
Therefore the Supreme Court cannot exist, and no system of judicial oversight is complete.

有谁知道2月4日的那场关于大脑意象的节目怎么了吗?这是一个我感兴趣的主题，但它还没有发布，我没有从哲学谈话博客管理员那里得到回复。中国伊朗亚洲杯比赛直播

In reference to the post 'the supreme court does not exist'.
Nice try but your attempt to use Bertrand Russells set theory paradox does not work well.
You state "A complete system of judicial oversight will be such that every court has some court directly overseeing it. Indeed, every complete system will have some court (call it the Supreme Court) which oversees all and only courts that do not oversee themselves."
These statements are self-contradictory, so everything which you conclude from them is meaningless. The proper conclusion from your reducto ad absurdem argument is that at least one of your premises is wrong, not that the supreme court doesn't exist.

I believe that the American people are judged not only by the people (society) as a whole unjustly, but by other nationalities unjustly as well. We live in a democracy where the final verdict is guilty by ignorance of knowing what is right. It is very imperative that we know the law. We as Americans need to know where we stand in the court room, before Congress, or the Supreme Court when defending or debating an issue. Read, understand and react.