- cross-posted to:
- politicus@kbin.social
- cross-posted to:
- politicus@kbin.social
You must log in or register to comment.
More than half of the Supreme Court are corrupt liars. Expand the Supreme Court and institute term limits ASAP. If I thought there was a snowballs chance in hell of it working I’d advocate impeaching the rotten bastards as well but that ain’t gonna happen.
I’m less for term limits and more for age limits. At some point between 65-72 they get booted off the bench.
Honestly, though, it is unlikely either term limits or age limits would prevent shitstains like Thomas and Alito from being on the bench. They’ve been there and been shitstains this whole time. Now they’re enjoying an uncontested majority that agrees with them, that’s all that has really changed.
Term limits are more important. I’m all for age limits, too, but term limits are more important,
It’d absolutely suck to have a life time appointment given to an asshole- an asshole who would be in office for 40 years because he was appointed straight out of law school.
I’m would suggest setting up a rotation that sees one judge go per year…. Let’s set it in June… so that the incoming president has a few months to get people….
This gives them a 9 year term. Remember, they’re supposed to be established judges so by then they’d be at retirement anyhow…
The rotating retirement is good because it gives a known number of appointments I’m each set timeframe. I would change it to 18 years so that it is every other year, otherwise a 2 term president could appoint 8/9 justices and dominate the court
I would change it to 18 years so that it is every other year,
A prime number might be better, as shown by cicadas
This is such a spurious connection lol but I read the article anyway
The pattern probably emerged as a result of Darwinian natural selection: cicadas that naturally matured in easily divisible years were gobbled up by predators, and simply didn’t live long enough to produce as many offspring. Those who, by chance, had long, prime-numbered life spans fared best, survived longest, and left the most offspring, becoming the dominant variation of the species.
I’m glad the author actually took the time to describe the evolutionary process accurately. When I was an impressionable youngin’ arguing against evolution, a big sticking point for me was how so many people described evolution as if there was some design or guidance behind it all. Nope, just common sense chaos and lots of death
Yes, I too get annoyed when evolution is described as an active process, e.g. “evolution got us to have legs to walk”, rather than a passive selection process “evolution means that those early humans that walked were better able to successfully procreate”.
It is noteworthy to me that a prime number based length of tenure might then cause the fewest number of retirements at the same time, over time.
This is definitely the better solution. We don’t need the court experiencing major political swings during nearly every presidency.
Edit: Also, the chief justice should either be chosen amongst themselves or be the longest serving member, not randomly chosen when that spot opens.
While I am thinking about it. if we really want to depoliticize the position, as much as possible, we should consider making them lifetime public citizens after they join the court. By public citizen, I mean they become wards of the nation and can no longer make or posses money or assets. They must divest all assets to family and will be provided food, lodging, and stipends for travel or leisure for the rest of their lives. After they retire they will become Justices Emeriti who should guest lecture at various law schools and may be called in to advise or assist the sitting court when particularly complex issues arise. Any money made by a Justice Emeritus should be funneled into the cost of providing for all the Justice Emeritus.
Term limits but no age limit means we’ll still have old out of touch justices.
What would work best is if we treated SC like a rotation, do your 5-10 or whatever years, then rotate back to a lower court if your still under an age.
There should be mandatory retirement ages, because power hungry people never step down voluntarily.
And the way it’s currently structured, a president will appoint someone that will stay in the longest. That’s why Republicans are nominating you inexperienced judges who will be there for 30 years.
What if life extension radically alters what is thought of as “old”?
We can cross that bridge when we get there
What if life extension radically alters what is thought of as “old”?
Then we should celebrate that, and re-calibrate accordingly
I’d be more for capability limits? What happens if life extension comes along and we are frozen in the past (just like we are right now with things like EC and the way in which California is underrepresented with only 2 senators, WTF) with really stupid and outmoded rules?
No, don’t expand it. Impeach the judges for being corrupt. Don’t let them just hang around like a turd floating in the pool.
Impeaching the bad actors is the correct solution, in my problem. Impeachment could also be used to remove elderly judges who are no longer sharp enough to do the job. The problem is that it is too hard to impeach them. The bar and number of votes required to impeach needs to be lowered. Right now, the GOP can block every attempt to impeach these obviously unethical justices. 50% in the House to impeach and 50% in the Senate to convict/remove them, without allowing filibusters, would solve this issue.
I don’t think the 50/50 “fix” would do anything but cause massive issues every single election. We seem to constantly end up losing and gaining that 50% so frequently that the courts would be upended every time the opposition got the majority.
I’d love to see it happen, but I don’t foresee it any time soon, and that’s a real issue. The “left” pols put off bringing articles of impeachment on too many right wing presidents: right wing pols brought impeachment charges against neolib, Clinton, for lying about cheating on his wife with a naïve intern (Bill Barr and George Conway took part in that), neoliberal pols failed to impeach George W. Bush for lying about Sadaam Hussein possessing WMD and manufacturing evidence (presenting fake evidence). Congress also notably did nothing about SCOTUS calling the election for W with the ludicrous “hanging chad” decision. Flash forward and the EC (which Congress has the power to abolish) appointed tfg. When Dems finally got around to impeaching someone, Bill Barr was AG, and he willfully lied about what was in Mueller’s final investigative report of tfg. So now tfg has installed numerous corrupt judges and other government appointees that can’t immediately be easily removed, Dems failed to stack the court under their own former guy, so we’ve got this. I don’t foresee neolib or traditional conservatives really being able to do anything about it, their own reluctance aside. I’m interested to hear what anyone could do, if the willingness and intestinal fortitude to do anything can be mustered. Anyone?
That’s because the American “left” is center-right. That is why Democrats never do shit to hold Republicans to account: They’re politically aligned enough to not really care.
Americans HAVE to learn that the Democrats are also not good. That doesn’t make them useless when fighting far-right fascists, but it makes them useless for solving the US’s problems that allowed the rise of fascism in the first place.
its more our FPTP system only has one degree of freedom. We need multiwinner elections for the house, senate, electoral college where anyone who gets 10% of the vote gets 10% of the reps. Then the politicians can’t hide all the shit under wedge issues. They can do that now because our electoral system is infinitely gameable as long as there’s only 2 choices
That is indeed a possible solution, but do not doscount how true my statements are: Democrats are NOT an ally of anyone wanting actual radical change. Maybe if they ever start taking climate change seriously, but even then… Democrats (the party leadership more specifically) are not good people. There are some good Democrats, but the party is not and does fight change.
While you’re absolutely right that a SCOTUS justice won’t be removed via impeachment and trial in the Senate, the impeachment and the trial itself grant Congress WIDE lattitude to perform investigations and the trial, a spectacle in its own right, means all that evidence is brought into the light for the people to see.
Again, while removal is unlikely, the remaining corrupt justices along with their handlers, will almost certainly want to prevent such a trial, and would pressure the impeached justice to resign to avoid it.
If the trial happens, though, a huge portion of the country gets to learn and understand just how corrupt and fickle our court is, which is something almost no one in power wants. That, alone, should be reason to push for impeachment as hard as possible.
I can already hear the cacophony of people shouting rigged and fake news.
I tell everybody prosecutions against both hunter and trump will benefit everyone if even a portion of discovery is made public. We get to see the sausage being made and its gross.
You think there’s more of a chance for expansion and term limits?
Exactly. I’d come to say, “ Wrong on the facts, wrong on the history, on the wrong side of honesty and ethical standards, Justice Alito and his colleagues need to be reined in. Since Chief Justice Roberts won’t do it, it is time for Congress to step up and save the court from itself.” ‘sif.”
Expanding the courts because we aren’t happy with the current lineup would set an extremely dangerous precedent. Assuming that the Republicans in the Senate would let any of Biden’s nominations through, what would stop the next Republican president from expanding SCOTUS again to make sure they are back in the majority?
Edit: Questions get question marks.
Nothing in the Constitution limits the power of Congress over the federal government either. Kind of a stupid assertion. Also, it’s a dangerous game to play, because if Congress can’t “regulate” the courts then they are limited to impeachment tools.
If Congress can’t regulate the court then the separation of powers are unequal and the government needs to be dissolved.
I’ll get the acid
Hand me a tab
This one’s got like a Jamaican flag on it and shit so you know it’s going to be wild
Don’t discount bases, they can dissolve too!
Okay fine, I’ll get the caesium oxide
What really sucks is the gamification of government. When a party is acting in its own interest and not the peoples interest they think they have a right to power. They do not. Instead of conceding that they are the minority they game the system. 18th century government was not designed to stand up to the technological advancement of 21st century society.
In fact, we have to admit to ourselves that the constitution and the US government was not a government built on equality and other core principles of democracy.
In fact, we have to admit to ourselves that the constitution and the US government was not a government built on equality and other core principles of democracy.
Man, if only there was a theory where we could critically examine the intersection of race and early American law, and how that still shapes our landscape today.
Sorry, I’m lost. Could you spell it out more? /s
Seriously though, well called out stranger.
Do not mistake the rise of fascism for simply the goingson of a political party.
This sh*t should make every American think twice.
“Should” its weird that we choose to ignore the bad when it’s your team doing the awful shit. Choosing a political side should be discouraged.
Trust me, maybe the only thing that might make me look twice at the GOP is if Democrats had a super majority. Everyone of us should accept the fact that the only way that happens is if GOP defects or we somehow awaken the other half the country that skips the polls every year. It would actually probably be a combination of both but why I bring it up is in this hypothetical super majority you have known bad actors. The bad actors will certainly rise to the top and will grab power the first chance they get.
Now we are probably too polarized to ever see this future but without overhauling our voting system we cannot vote our way out.
This is what is wrong with American politics.
I’m just here to express appreciation for correctly using “reined in” instead of “reigned in”
Wait fuck, to the dictionary…
EDIT: well sheit
Such an arrogant turd.
One thing is for sure - Trollito is always one for the galaxy brain BS that is guaranteed to - if implemented - make this country worse.
One justice per district would be a good move and in line with historical precedent.
It would probably also be helpful to have financial oversight for officials of all 3 branches of government that doesn’t assume the heads of each of those branches will just police their own.
100% agree. Anyone taking on a major political office should have their finances be 100% transparent. No secretly selling off stock a few days ahead of major news breaking, no undisclosed “gifts”, no $100k “speaking engagements” without it at the very least being fully disclosed
Would it be a privacy issue for elected officials? Sure, but no one is forcing them to hold major political offices, and there are plenty others who would happily fill their shoes. The people most OK with complete financial transparency are the exact sorts we’d want in office anyways, so it’d actually help to self select
Additionally there should be a way to get direct ballot issues without having to get signoff by any elected official.
He’s a complete lunatic.
In normal times, his ass would have been long impeached and removed. Unfortunately, we have been beyond normal times for years. Normal times officially died in 2000. The repeal of equal time clause and Gingrich were the two mortal wounds.
They lived through normal times. So they’re taking full advantage of that fact alone to dominate and destroy what’s left for future generations.
deleted by creator
Not even with a rented dick.
Its funny how these journalists and a hand full of armchair pundits think they understand the constitution better than a supreme court justice. One that has devoted his life to the constitution for over 10 years.
Edit: go ahead and downvote me. We all know I am right. This is just how the system is set up whether you like it or not
Devoting 10 years of his life to the constitution does not automatically mean he will interpret it in good faith and not push a personal/organization agenda, COUGHFederalistSocietyCOUGH
Samuel Alito literally ignored the 9th Amendment and cited the arguments of a British witch hunter from the 1600s to do so when he wrote Dobbs.
His opinion on what the Constitution means can fuck right off.
His opinion is only on whether laws are or can be argued as constitutional.
Your anger should be at the members of the house/senate for not codifying abortion rights into an amendment for 35 years after Roe v Wade passed, not at the people judging if we made rules for that yet.
My anger is at the fucking asshat who said this
rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, (…) must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition”
which 1) as I already said, flies in the face of the 9th Amendment, and 2) means that if you take this to its logical conclusion, that Americans can never decide anything is a “right” that didn’t exist at the time of our country’s founding.
Stop carrying water for these theocratic fascists.
Did you read his opinion? He states why he doesnt think that Roe and Casey decisions apply to the 9th and 14th.
ALSO, why would you call a supreme court judge a fascist? It doesnt make any sense. Its like calling a police a fascist for doing their job
