Accusing SC Justices of partisanship and prejudice. Isn't that hyperbole?

A veto could also have kept out Bork.

Btw, I don’t know if presidential nomination is the best process for choosing SC judges (or federal judges in general) in the first place.

Parliamentary system have their own issues, however. Ultimately, I don’t know which is better.

I more or less agree with your points on the rise of echo chambers in US political life, but I think radicalization has mostly occurred on the right. Yes, we on the left do have our echo chambers, but we are normal (with a normal level of flaws, etc.), whereas the right has gone nuts with MAGA.

I had never thought about it in this way, but I think you make a good point.

I think the US government should be completely overhauled at this point. For example, with respect to gerrymandering, I don’t think we should have states as we do now. There should be some local government, but, for example, we don’t need local real estate law, or state-based diver licenses, etc. Federalize that shit.

So if we didn’t have states as we do now, then we wouldn’t have a senate with two senators per state. Etc. etc. Would a unicameral legislature be better? It hasn’t hurt Nebraska, it would seem. Or maybe we could have an upper house with proportional representation. There are a zillion things to consider.

I think we’ve seen the same lack of sanity around the world, as with Brexit, far-right parties in Europe, etc. So it’s not just a local infection, and I think we should ask ourselves why.

Btw, Slate had an article that describes how Canada has legislative override of judicial decisions, and it seems to work pretty well: