Instead of debates, rallies, interviews, etc...

I'd like YOUR thoughts on a recent thought I had...

Wouldn't it be something (good) if instead of the "moderated" debates we settle for, the debates were presided over by the Supreme Court justices, in a controlled court setting, that was televised for the public to see?

The candidates could take turns making statements, policy promises, accusations, and whatnot. Objections, on any grounds (relevance, inaccuracy, legality, speculation, etc,) could be made, which would then be sustained or overruled. Cross-examinations would expose fallacies.

The candidates, policies, accusations, etc, even the Supreme Court justices, would all be held to higher standard, constitutionally, as they should be.

Views and opinions would be scrutinized, and there would be no question dodging.

There's time to do it. We're over a year into the candidacies. There's still 7 months left before the election. It would be more conducive than all the interviews, rallies, and non-binding debates, and ESPECIALLY the biased reporting of the facts by both sides of the controlled media that we are subjected to.

It's supposedly the most crucial, important decision that we make, AS A COUNTRY, once every four years, therefore trumping the previous obligations of parties involved, encouraging them to attend?

The BEST PART!: We would have "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," helping us make our choice.

Thoughts? Is this possible? Plausible? Needed? Not good? (Apply "in theory" to all of those if you want.)

(I, personally don't believe it will happen, especially in time for this election, because reasons like TPTB, but if people can unite, we can do anything!" I would/will support this)

The Supreme Court justices' job is NOT to moderate elections. They have quite enough to do already. Certainly the current "style" of presidential debates is not satisfactory. We can all present a lot of reasons why this is so. But the idea of debates presided over by the Supreme Court is not a fix for this, nor would they ever agree to do it.

a reply to: schuyler

Star for participation.

I understand it is NOT their job. I'm making the case it SHOULD BE part of it...
What is more important?
Why wouldn't it be a fix.
If they are SERVING as a justice FOR us/the U.S., SHOULDN'T they agree to do it? Or is national politics below them?
I'm not saying they should be the electors, but debates are essentially arguments, and what better non-violent way to settle an argument than court?

How about we have real debates?

Right now what we "get" is a glorified question & answer session with some arguing on the side.

Being asked questions and answering them, then arguing over those answers is NOT A DEBATE by definition.

So many young people today in America think that just arguing back and forth is some kind of debate. It's not. A real debate has structure, rules, and is judged.

Simply answering questions and then squabbling over the answers isn't a debate.

It's free advertising and low-brow entertainment.

originally posted by: japhrimu
I'd like YOUR thoughts on a recent thought I had...

Wouldn't it be something (good) if instead of the "moderated" debates we settle for, the debates were presided over by the Supreme Court justices, in a controlled court setting, that was televised for the public to see?

The candidates could take turns making statements, policy promises, accusations, and whatnot. Objections, on any grounds (relevance, inaccuracy, legality, speculation, etc,) could be made, which would then be sustained or overruled. Cross-examinations would expose fallacies.

The candidates, policies, accusations, etc, even the Supreme Court justices, would all be held to higher standard, constitutionally, as they should be.

Views and opinions would be scrutinized, and there would be no question dodging.

There's time to do it. We're over a year into the candidacies. There's still 7 months left before the election. It would be more conducive than all the interviews, rallies, and non-binding debates, and ESPECIALLY the biased reporting of the facts by both sides of the controlled media that we are subjected to.

It's supposedly the most crucial, important decision that we make, AS A COUNTRY, once every four years, therefore trumping the previous obligations of parties involved, encouraging them to attend?

The BEST PART!: We would have "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," helping us make our choice.

Thoughts? Is this possible? Plausible? Needed? Not good? (Apply "in theory" to all of those if you want.)

(I, personally don't believe it will happen, especially in time for this election, because reasons like TPTB, but if people can unite, we can do anything!" I would/will support this)

I'd like to see a Lincoln-Douglas style debate, Trump vs Cruz, Clinton vs Sanders. No moderators, just let them have it at each other for an hour. Most times, moderators want to become part of the debate, with their 'gotcha' questions and cutting people off after a 30 second soundbite answer.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Star for participation.

So, you agree with me, right? What i proposed in the OP is "A real debate," in my opinion/understanding.

a reply to: UnBreakable

Star for participation.

I agree there is a place for that. It would at LEAST show their resolve.
I agree with your point about the moderators, which is why I think the moderators should be "honorable," hence justices.
They can have all the 30 second soundbites all they want, but those would then be subject to objections and cross-examinations... If the candidates try to steer the conversation, bring 'em right back, "Yes or No, Mr Candidate," or "Answer the question!" etc...

a reply to: japhrimu

I don't know...

People are so entrenched these days with their "team" that any "debate" isn't liable to change anyone's views. It'll just be some sick intellectual bloodsport.

We might as well wear jersey's, guzzle beer, make hot wings and those little tiny sausages -- and have "half time shows" too.

That is what politics in the USA has become:

A sport. A competitive sport that has lost all legitimate respect.

Hell, the candidates are even sponsored by major corporations to boot -- they might as well be open and give those companies some advertising time/space. Maybe wear logo t-shirts with logos on them or something.

a reply to: japhrimu

Uh, well, you do know that Supreme court justices are brainiacs, right?

So they'd be in charge of moderating and enforcing the rules?

Don't think that would work too well with this bunch of dummies. The whole event would amount to the Justices refereeing idiots who couldn't understand the rules.

I've got a different idea. Use multiple Gas Chambers, the ones that have the vat of acid under the seat and a pellet of cyanide waiting to be dropped into the acid.....pretty old school but it works. Then, on one day, put all the candidates into the gas chambers, strap them in, put a computer in front of them and subject them to a day long multiple choice test on a pass/fail basis. At grading time, in the failed cases, the computer pulls the trigger on the cyanide capsule and the candidate/contestant gets gassed to death. If two or more win, they get to live for a runnoff on the next day!

Now...........that's how we get better candidates and BETTER TV!

originally posted by: japhrimu
a reply to: schuyler

Star for participation.

I understand it is NOT their job. I'm making the case it SHOULD BE part of it...
What is more important?
Why wouldn't it be a fix.
If they are SERVING as a justice FOR us/the U.S., SHOULDN'T they agree to do it? Or is national politics below them?
I'm not saying they should be the electors, but debates are essentially arguments, and what better non-violent way to settle an argument than court?

And I'm making the case that it SHOULD NOT BE part of their job. Yes, national politics (ought to be) below them. That's the main reason they are nominated for life, specifically so they can not be influenced by the political fray. To install them as some sort of game show host is not a fix for anything. It would be farcical at best.

What we have now is not a debate at all. I agree that a Lincoln/Douglas debate format would be far better than the 60 second response to "neutral" moderators' loaded questions we have today.

But keep the Supreme Court out of it.

CANDIDATES have the final say in the rules, format and structure of the debate.

It starts with the RNC or DNC (primaries) negotiating with networks...then each candidate can throw a tantrum and refuse...as Trump has done.

In a general election BOTH the RNC and DNC have to sign off on format, structure and sometimes questions..

And Networks compete for the debates, so they aren't in a good position to make demands...

Otherwise...the PEOPLE's opinions and what might best inform them in their decision...has NOTHING to do with it.

That would need to be fixed first and foremost...the rest follows.

I'll be back soon to respond to all... I'm cooking breakfast, and am participating in a texting conversation/argument about politics...

brb

a reply to: MystikMushroom

So we agree that the current setup, and the direction it's headed, is wrong.
I'm not understanding your argument against what I'm proposing in the OP, which would force some decorum, hence the courtroom setting...

Instead of justices, let ordinary people ask questions, pertinent ones, digging up dirt and sleeping dogs.

Don't let them out of the room until they answer them sufficiently. The best indicator of future behavior is how they behaved in the past.

Umm, Hillary, Why did you say "we came. we saw and he died" in that video of you laughing when you got word?

a reply to: TonyS

Yes, the individuals who are already charged with interpreting the rules (laws) would do the same here.

In your hypothetical acid test, who sets right and wrong?

There's plenty of "good TV." (Good TV meaning entertaining/distracting. Your idea would capture more interest, for sure.)

a reply to: schuyler

It would be "transparent" is what it would be.

Involving the Supreme Court at this level would, in my guess/opinion/ideal, be more efficient than waiting until someone screams "unconstitutional" once laws are passed...

The court, in my example's intent, would filter the "logic fallacies," and unconstitutional policies, among other things...

a reply to: Indigo5

I don't see how you're disagreeing with me...
I am independent. If I HAD to affiliate with a party, it'd be Libertarian. I agree the DNC and RNC manipulate the process... I don't like the way they do it.
Televise the proceedings to any network that wants it, free of charge if need-be. This is our future at stake.
Otherwise... what? People's opinions... have NOTHING to do with it?! Care to expand on that idea, or comment what you think of it?

Sounds like TPTB, and I already mentioned that's why I doubt it'll happen... Doesn't mean we shouldn't TRY. Aren't people who protest TRYING? I just think they're focused on the wrong things. Hence...

Yes, fix stuff. That's the point. My suggestion is a step in that direction, in my opinion, at least "IN THEORY." Why is my theory wrong? Because reasons? Because it's "hard?"

Not good enough for me.

a reply to: intrptr

Yes. Do that. I'd like to be able to ask 'em questions, myself.
I'm not saying the justices would be asking the questions. Own Sides/Opposing sides would, like in court. If an ordinary citizen wants to participate, however, they should fall under the same scrutiny as everyone in the court: Don't bear false witness. If you bear true witness, be prepared to back it up.
Let them leave if they want. But if they want to work FOR us, then yes, this should be mandatory, until sufficient satisfaction. If they can't stand the heat, they can exit the kitchen. Their choice. Leaving should disqualify them.
How they behaved in the past is fair game. It is evidence of character.
Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many things about soooooooo many PUBLIC SERVANTS could be exposed.

Can't you bring them to Jerry Springer instead of the supreme court?
Somehow that seems more fitting.

I think I need to clarify my OP's title and original statement...

Instead of the Debates... (took off the rest)

Rallies and interviews are fine, and provide good material to draw on.

Those who conduct the interviews would also be subject to scrutiny in my hypothetical court, but only to shine light on any biases. If said individuals would like to defend themselves, disproving the inferred bias, they could appear in court, too...

If someone wants to start, or even parrot dis/misinformation, PROVE them wrong...

Everybody is allowed to have their own opinions, but opinions could be taken as judgements, and "judge not, lest ye be judged..."