I don't like that 9 people in robes (who aren't elected) make major decisions about my life so I certainly don't want more of them on the court. The Supreme Court was NOT created to do what it has been tasked to do....create law. Congress needs to do their damn job and the Senate needs to ensure that their states have decent representation....period. The only thing I think needs a bit of tweaking is having term limits and staggering.
Except congress doesn't want the job. From the point of view of a congressman a controversial law means you alienate half your potential voters no matter how you vote. Far better to pass vague laws and let someone who isn't elected, e.g., a judge or bureaucrat, make the tough calls.
Well, then they need to better understand what the job IS before they decide to run for office....because THAT is their job! What are they teaching kids in school about the formation of our government? What clap trap is being taught in Poli Sci at the college level? Nine figures in black robes should not be making "the tough calls".
I agree. Its not good for judges to amend the Constitution or legislate from the bench, substitute their policy preferences for those of the elected President, or use the coercive tools they have been given for fact-finding purposes to block actions. The conservatives on the court have been saying that all of my adult lifetime.
I think the idea of staggered 18 year terms makes sense on the merits, if they could actually get it together to pass it as a bipartisan constitutional amendment so it doesn't cost us in legitimacy that'd be pretty good. Unlikely in a polarized era though.
A supposedly originalist Supreme Court majority deciding the President is above the law or that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't mean what the words plainly mean (as previous courts held) is more than the Left not liking the court's decisions.
The unironically Orwellian title of that piece, which trumpets its TDS at the very beginning, make it “interesting” only in seeing how authoritarian leftists justify their attainment of authoritarian power.
I don't like that 9 people in robes (who aren't elected) make major decisions about my life so I certainly don't want more of them on the court. The Supreme Court was NOT created to do what it has been tasked to do....create law. Congress needs to do their damn job and the Senate needs to ensure that their states have decent representation....period. The only thing I think needs a bit of tweaking is having term limits and staggering.
Except congress doesn't want the job. From the point of view of a congressman a controversial law means you alienate half your potential voters no matter how you vote. Far better to pass vague laws and let someone who isn't elected, e.g., a judge or bureaucrat, make the tough calls.
Well, then they need to better understand what the job IS before they decide to run for office....because THAT is their job! What are they teaching kids in school about the formation of our government? What clap trap is being taught in Poli Sci at the college level? Nine figures in black robes should not be making "the tough calls".
Except someone with the attitude you want wouldn't be voted out of office almost immediately.
I agree. Its not good for judges to amend the Constitution or legislate from the bench, substitute their policy preferences for those of the elected President, or use the coercive tools they have been given for fact-finding purposes to block actions. The conservatives on the court have been saying that all of my adult lifetime.
I’m curious what major decisions about your life the Court has made?
I think the idea of staggered 18 year terms makes sense on the merits, if they could actually get it together to pass it as a bipartisan constitutional amendment so it doesn't cost us in legitimacy that'd be pretty good. Unlikely in a polarized era though.
Packing the Court is the same as a military takeover of the judiciary.
oh my god ilya shapiro lmao
now that’s a name i haven’t seen in a long time - probably because no one gives a shit what he has to say
A supposedly originalist Supreme Court majority deciding the President is above the law or that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't mean what the words plainly mean (as previous courts held) is more than the Left not liking the court's decisions.
“ Losing cases isn’t a constitutional crisis.”
Very true,
But for today’s left, losing elections is.
The unironically Orwellian title of that piece, which trumpets its TDS at the very beginning, make it “interesting” only in seeing how authoritarian leftists justify their attainment of authoritarian power.