Yeah, it was a fucking idiotic thing to say, coming from a fucking idiot.
SCOTUS is a terrible institution (because of judicial review, a power that it arrogated in 1805) that has had an enervating effect on US politics and society. Since we can’t get anything done politically, so we’ve turned to SCOTUS to get anything done, and now that it’s gone nuts, we’re left with fucking crazy things “getting done.” I agree that it can’t last at this point. At the very least, all federal judges should be elected.
They don’t allow vaping in the Supreme Court chamber, so that’s gonna be a big negative for all three of them.
Wait, You mean there is no deep fat? No steak or cream pies or… hot fudge?
Eh, it’s no news that strict constructionists are now being hypocrites, because strict constructualism is an inherently hypocritical judicial framework right from the start. Because, you know, the simple, direct text of the Constitution itself prohibits strict constructualism.
That sounds like a fantastic idea to me. I’m sure it would require a constitutional amendment correct? Which in today’s environment makes it a non-starter. But still a fantastic idea. And cap the number of justices in the same legislation.
I’ve often considered the option of expanding the number of justices. But I’ve never supported it 100% due to unforeseeable consequences that could result. (How will the next Republican administration react, hell how will the supreme Court react? Would it have to be done in such a way that they could review it if a case is brought before them?)
At the very least I would support the impeachment and removal of Alito, Thomas, and add Gorsuch to that list for his dumbass statement.
I’m hearing that Barrett might be siding with the liberal justices? At least a little bit maybe? Anyone have more info on that?
Yes, an amendment. And judicial review in its current form should be eliminated, and questions of real weight should be remanded to Congress to determine the law (i.e., legislative override).
Yeah, that idea seems sloppy to me, especially since…
Yes, we have a corrupt, rogue court right now. It’s a sloppy disgrace. We need to erase it and start over. Thomas is completely corrupt fascist jackass, and Alito is fucking joke.
I think that’s getting out ahead of our proverbial skis a bit.
Take a look at one set of particulars (from me) above:
That could be taken as an encouraging sign, but … who knows.
IMO, that would be a terrible change. Many states have elections for their state Supreme Courts and lower courts, and the result is often judges indebted to state parties and special interests for their seats.
The change I’d like to see is abolishing lifetime tenure in favor of fixed terms filled on a set rotation. That would allow for a more regular rotating in and out of judges to put an expiration date on a bad judge and provide more stability around when openings will come up.
I agree with all this.
I’d also like to see the SCOTUS run more like a circuit court; that is, a larger number of justices, say 25, who are then randomly drawn to hear cases each term. That way, no one would know which justices were going to hear which cases, so they couldn’t engineer particular outcomes.
I think these changes would create some restraints on partisanship.
At least enlarge the Supreme Court to the same number as the Circuit Courts of Appeal – there are currently 13 of them. That way each justice would be assigned to only one Circuit Court under 28 USC section 42.
That seems like a fantastic and common sense solution. Once again, our anachronistic system makes the stakes too high to actually achieve good governance.
Agreed on both parts – so long as for the Supremes the term is fairly long, and clearly a single term. The idea of the original, I believe, was once in the seat they wouldn’t be beholden to anybody, and so could make their decisions free of politics; which isn’t working. But they certainly shouldn’t be campaigning for a re-run. And both for stability of the Court, and for time better learning the job on the ground, the terms should be long.
I’d also give the Senate a set time to hold a vote on their “advise and consent” part. If they don’t do so, the nominee is confirmed.
I’m intrigued by these suggestions. What would be the ideal term for a SCOTUS justice? 12 years?
So let’s say that in this world without judicial review, an individual - let’s call him, say, Mr. Green, believes that the local Board of Water and Sanitation has violated his rights, while the Board asserts that it is merely following the law. The case works its way through the judicial system, it reaches the Supreme Court, and the court determines indeed that Green’s constitutional rights have been violated and the law the Board is following is the cause of that violation.
How does Green get made whole if the court has no power to nullify the law? And what about Mrs. Blue, Mx. Ochre, and Chief Gunnery Sergeant Remoulade, whose rights are being violated the same way by other boards in other municipalities?
Like the courts beneath it, the SC does a lot of nuts-and-bolts work with little controversy. But when it makes crazyass decisions (e.g., Citizens United, Dobbs) that drastically affect the entire nation, there should be an override process over which Congress would have control (this process could in theory apply to anything but would probably only be used for the big stuff or extremely asinine things within the little stuff).
Overturn Roe and create political chaos and fuck up the lives of women across the country? “No, we think not.”
Seems to me Congress already has the power to address a “bad” Supreme Court decision through legislation. The reason Congress hasn’t addressed Citizens United or Dobbs isn’t because they aren’t allowed to.
And I’m sure there are plenty of people who would argue that Roe itself was a “crazyass decision” that drastically affected the entire nation.
Again, what happens in Green v. Board of Water and Sanitation if the Supreme Court can’t actually do anything about an unconstitutional law?
Our sclerotic political system makes it difficult to get anything done. If it requires a constitutional amendment, then fuhgeddaboudit.
I would agree. The country needed to process the abortion issue organically. Roe was the drop of poison (however good some of its effects were) that allowed the toxic “Conservative” movement to rise.
Again, it could, but it would be subjected to congressional review.
It’s already subject to congressional review and neutering the Supreme Court isn’t going to change the factors that have stopped that from happening.
Like I said, our sclerotic political institutions make it impossible to change anything.