Correct. I mean it should be someone much better at debating than me and live on tv actually. Would be glorious to see him get absolutely wrecked.
Our system is so old and dumb. Justices should be elected by the national popular vote. The people deciding our laws should represent the majority of the people.
It would actually be OK to have Breyer types on the Court in a better functioning system. Technocratic navel gazers appointed by their peers are prone to massive blind spots, sure, but on the other hand expertise is actually valuable. The problem with the ineffectualness of the SC is actually a symptom of the broken political system, if the Executive and Congress were actually working no one would care that we have Law Bros on the SC. Itâs the corruption of the Presidency and Congress that makes a weak and rigid SC problematic.
From listening to 5-4 Bryer has been the deciding vote on some pretty awful fucking shit and had horrible reasoning to boot. I think pretty much all of the dem justices suck ass, run cover for the police constantly etc. The qualified immunity shit is completely made up and not based on any law whats so ever.
I do agree though, from what Iâve read from actually functioning democracies nobody really pays attention to their highest courts because theyâre never actually up in congress shit.
If congress passes a law that should be the end of it. Itâs fucking absurd that a bunch of old unelected assholes get to straight up overturn laws congress passed. Not to mention our 6 right now were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote. Nuking the voting rights bill should have had all of those justices expelled. The law was just fucking reauthorized 98-0 and they overturned it⌠pure insanity we let that happen without riots in the streets.
They just made that power up in Marbury v Madison too. Itâs not written anywhere in the Constitution that I can see; they just conjured it up out of thin air and nobody bothered to stop them because it was politically expedient to let it happen at the time. Afaik no other high court in any other major democracy has the power to nullify laws based on their feels⌠I mean, a careful reading of the law and the Constitution.
I can absolutely guarantee you that nobody in Australia can name any of the Justices of the High Court (equivalent of SCOTUS), including me, because nobody gives a shit, they are irrelevant.
The idea of SEPARATION OF POWERS doesnât work in a highly partisan system because it just provides ways for one party to sabotage the efforts of the other. You need one or other of the parties to be clearly to blame if things donât work out.
Honestly while I support Roe v Wade in the context of the American system, it is fundamentally bad that a court is dictating what should obviously be government policy. Judicial restrictions on what a government can and canât do should be aimed squarely at preventing the democratic process from breaking down, not correcting its shortcomings.
The supreme court has been probably the worst institution in the country for a long time. From laws against recently freeâd slaves, to civil rights in general, to laws crushing labor rights, to crushing unions. In this entire countries history there has been maybe 40ish years when the supreme court wasnât completely fucking awful.
If packing the court is impossible, the next best thing is neuturing them. Take away the judicial review bullshit, their ability to make shit up, and relegate them to normal functions.
I think I agree with the sentiment in the last couple of posts, but in all the Western legal systems governments pass laws and courts can, to some degree, overturn a law or at least itâs intent. Disputes about the legality of new legislation in light of things like constitutions, charters, etc. get escalated in the courts all the time. Itâs maybe more obvious in the US because the SC is so vocal and visible and partisan. But court cases change the application of law all the time.
Sorry, but these are just awful takes. Judges are not supposed to be politicians, but electing them would make them no different from politicians. On what basis would you vote for them, other than their political views?
What is Congress but a bunch of old assholes anyway? What if Congress passes laws that are âunconstitutionalâ. For example, flag burning. Advocates of such a law want to jail people for this. Because its not patriotic. Or because it expresses a political view that they donât like. Trump and his Republican Congress could have passed a law saying its a crime to criticize Trump, and Trump would have signed it. And you then could go to jail for saying something bad about Trump. And without the courts, who would stop this from happening? Congress can pass whatever laws they want, and if there are no justices to sometimes reverse what they do, they why bother having a Constitution?
Judges already are politicians and them getting life time appointments mean theyâre completely unaccountable to anyone. I mean just fucking check out our current supreme court, the conservatives rule 100% based on partisan ideology for any case that matters. Your ideology is going to always form your opinion, there is no way to avoid that.
By electing them, and say giving them 8 years maximum, and by popular vote, it will mean the laws of this country update and reflect the will of the people.
Several states do election based judges and afaik it works out pretty well.
Also the constitution is old as fuck and super outdated. It absolutely should not be dictating our lives. I highly, highly doubt a national popular vote would produce enough judges to do shit like burn flags.
I mean our current system is the one that produced stop and frisk being legal and hundreds of other heinous shit. Saying cops donât have to protect you at all. They will throw your rights away with the quickness, the constitution doesnât protect you at all, our current court mainly says it protects capital.
The courts have also prevented police powers from being far more reaching than they are. Agree that the current problem is that judges can be seen as too political, but I donât think making them completely political is the solution. Why have a little elected group empowered to overturn the legislation of the bigger elected group?
Its the courts that have protected abortion rights, for as long as they have been protected, and the courts that made gay marriage a reality. And if the prospect of a Republican House of Representatives is a viable possibility, then it seems the prospect of a largely Republican Supreme Court would be a viable possibility, just as it is under the current system.
The police stuff is very wink wink nod nod. The court issues nominally restrictive rulings but there is basically no enforcement mechanism so in reality the police keep abusing the shit out of minorities and poor people. Even in extreme cases offenders almost never get fired and settlements are paid with tax dollars.
Counterpoint: Roy Moore was twice elected to be Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.
I think youâd pretty quickly end up with a combination of âconservative intellectualsâ like Hugh Hewitt, psychopaths like Judge Janine and Ann Coulter, and eventually non lawyers like Newt Gingrich and Tucker Carlson.
Most people who want to improve courts go the other way and want to ditch electing judges.
I mean doing it off of popular vote I donât think youâd have many conservative judges if at all.
Remember when three California state supreme Court justices lost retention elections because of their opposition to capital punishment?
In a way being a SCOTUS Justice is probably like being a billionaire. The world operates completely different for you than it does for regular people in ways that canât do anything but change your psyche. Virtually everyone of consequence that they interact with are always seeking their approval and deferring to their opinions. Even the people that disagree with their opinions, ie lawyers that argue in front of them and lower court judges, mostly have to treat them like they are valid They live in a completely insulated world where they have few chance encounters with regular people that arenât scripted. I donât think thereâs any way you could live in those conditions for any significan amount fo time and avoid having it completely fuck up your view of the world.
5th Circuit stayed the injunction, so looks like the law is in force again for the time being.
Special shout out to Leahy for enforcing the made up blue slip rule during the Obama years and saving a ton of spots on the 5th circuit for Trump.
Oh good we should be nearing the âX court declined to refuse to grant standing to stay the injunctionâ phase where I need a lawbro to tell me if itâs good or bad.