11 ms·

Thinking out loud what I've thought for awhile. The Supreme Court is an unelected political entity. Can this be fixed?

CommieBobDole 4y ago
It's this way by design. In retrospect, we could have probably avoided the problem of the party in power trying to appoint 'their' judges by requiring a three-quarters majority in the Senate for appointments, but that didn't happen and never will.
johnchristopher 4y ago
Didn't the Supreme Court just fix it by giving back this matter to states and their elected bodies ?
- EddieDante 4y ago
  The Supreme Court didn't fix a damn thing. They made bodily autonomy subject to majority votes in state legislatures. Bodily autonomy is too important to be trusted to a majority vote, and Democrats failed the country miserably by not pushing to amend the Constitution to guarantee the rights of all Americans to ownership over their own bodies.
  - car_analogy 4y ago
    But amending the constitution is also done by majority vote. There's nothing about legislating at the federal level that makes it more likely to produce the right laws than at the state level. For example, there's the federal marijuana ban, sending countless non-violent drug users to prison.
    - EddieDante 4y ago
      What the fuck am I supposed to do, then? Carry an AR-15 every time I take my wife to the gynecologist?
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  No. That's a temporary status. They went out of their way to ensure that a nationwide abortion ban was still 'constitutional' but the nationwide right to one was not.
vdddv 4y ago
Nominations of the justice is done by people who have been elected though. According to you, does that make them less legitimate that if they were directly elected?
- hnbad 4y ago
  Not OP, but yes, adding additional layers of indirection makes an election/nomination less representative of the will of the people and thus "less legitimate" if you think legitimacy is based on representing the will of the people. Of course the bigger problem according to this perspective is that there are many more layers of indirection before it even comes to the point where "your" elected representative nominates a judge. Some of them are more prone to "shaping" than others (e.g. via gerrymandering, disenfrachisement, voter suppression in all its forms) but the goal is generally to generate "favorable" election results regardless of what the people currently want.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pyronik19 4y ago
That's what it was when they came down with Roe originally, they are just returning to NOT being a legislative body and returning this decision to where it belongs.... the legislature.
- hackyhacky 4y ago
  Like it or not, ever since SCOTUS seized the unconstitutional power to overturn legislation, they have been a political entity, effectively legislating. The difference with recent rulings is that they've abandoned any pretense of political independence or legitimacy.
  - pyronik19 4y ago
    If that is your position, you think that when the came down with Roe V Wade that WAS political independence and legitimacy and when overturn it its not? You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's not "illegitimate" when they don't "legislate" the way YOU want. To be clear I am very moderate on abortion, I believe in the first trimester. But this is a states right issue and is a made up constitutional right.
    - hackyhacky 4y ago
      Acknowledging that SCOTUS has always been political is not controversial. But until recently, they "legislated" in a fair way, in order to maintain the appearance of neutrality. I am specifically objecting that change away from the appearance of neutrality, starting circa 2000 in Bush v Gore.
      - pyronik19 4y ago
        its fair when you get your way, its unfair when you don't? You think "Roe v Wade" is the appearance of neutrality but Dobbs isn't? What is your standard of fair vs unfair?
        hackyhacky 4y ago
rmorey 4y ago
It can be expanded or rotated without a constitutional amendment
formerkrogemp 4y ago
> The Supreme Court is an unelected political entity. Can this be fixed? Not really. The Senate and possibly House are expected to flip this fall. Our supreme court is taking a crack at reducing civil liberties and empowering conservative culture war positions. Precedent doesn't matter apparently. Only literal, conservative-justice interpretations of the constitution matter now. They're unqualified and unfit to run our nation's highest court. Radical and idealogical. Libertarians should be angry about this development of encroachment upon personal liberty and rights.
- pyronik19 4y ago
  - jleyank 4y ago
    Courts should be the most liberal part of a government. Otherwise the will of the majority is total and the minorities get royally screwed. Now, the sc is looking like the least liberal part, dragging existing laws and precedents down. Will be ugly. And now, it’s fair game when things reverse to rule the shit out of the 2nd amendment. Sauce for gander. Want a gun, sign up for the militia.
    - newfriend 4y ago
      The court interprets the laws. This was a bad ruling when it was made. If you want a law, then the legislative branch can try to pass one. That's how our government was setup to work. > Want a gun, sign up for the militia. All able-bodied citizens are already part of the militia. The Militia is just The People. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
      - myko 4y ago
        The militia was what became the national guard. If you read the founding father's word on the subject that's clear. Any other reading of the 2A is wishful thinking and SCOTUS rulings on the subject are an example of judicial activism.
hnbad 4y ago
You can't vote them out. There are only two ways to get rid of a Supreme Court judge: they retire or they die. As I assume you aren't asking for ways to bring about either of those scenarios in ways that would incur legal issues, the more appropriate answer is that the government can appoint additional judges, which I think is called "packing". Right now the general consensus among Democrats seems to be that they don't want to do it because it would set a precedent Republicans could exploit, although history has shown that the Republicans don't require precedents to "play dirty" (e.g. while Obama refused to appoint a replacement judge because he was on his way out of his second term, Republicans happily appointed replacement judges when Trump was on his way out, not to mention that a significant number of Republicans supported the claim that Biden "stole the election" and Trump was the real winner). If you're asking for a systemic long-term solution: no, it can't be fixed. The problem is that the Supreme Court lacks a clear mission statement and effectively acts to reinforce whichever party is in power at the time. The current SCOTUS majority leading to these decisions are "constitutional originalists". While you can argue that this is bad (or that this is still relying on interpretation and inferrences), it's impossible to say that this is wrong because it's an entirely valid interpretation of what the SCOTUS is for. If you want to "fix" the SCOTUS because it's undemocratic, the problem is that it's only one of many aspects of the structure of US government that's undemocratic. The system was never meant to allow all people to equally influence the government. The system exists as much to curtail the power of the ruling politicians as to curtail the direct power of the people. In other words SCOTUS isn't broken, you just don't like the political system itself. That's fine, but it requires a different framing in order to understand your goals and options.
- nescioquid 4y ago
  > There are only two ways to get rid of a Supreme Court judge: they retire or they die. They can be impeached by congress.
  - hnbad 4y ago
    That would require them to have commited impeachable offenses. That bar seems to be extremely high considering the kind of conduct that doesn't seem to meet it.

It's this way by design. In retrospect, we could have probably avoided the problem of the party in power trying to appoint 'their' judges by requiring a three-quarters majority in the Senate for appointments, but that didn't happen and never will.

johnchristopher 4y ago

Didn't the Supreme Court just fix it by giving back this matter to states and their elected bodies ?

EddieDante 4y ago
The Supreme Court didn't fix a damn thing. They made bodily autonomy subject to majority votes in state legislatures. Bodily autonomy is too important to be trusted to a majority vote, and Democrats failed the country miserably by not pushing to amend the Constitution to guarantee the rights of all Americans to ownership over their own bodies.
- car_analogy 4y ago
  But amending the constitution is also done by majority vote. There's nothing about legislating at the federal level that makes it more likely to produce the right laws than at the state level. For example, there's the federal marijuana ban, sending countless non-violent drug users to prison.
  - EddieDante 4y ago
    What the fuck am I supposed to do, then? Carry an AR-15 every time I take my wife to the gynecologist?
mikeyouse 4y ago
No. That's a temporary status. They went out of their way to ensure that a nationwide abortion ban was still 'constitutional' but the nationwide right to one was not.

vdddv 4y ago

Nominations of the justice is done by people who have been elected though. According to you, does that make them less legitimate that if they were directly elected?

hnbad 4y ago
Not OP, but yes, adding additional layers of indirection makes an election/nomination less representative of the will of the people and thus "less legitimate" if you think legitimacy is based on representing the will of the people. Of course the bigger problem according to this perspective is that there are many more layers of indirection before it even comes to the point where "your" elected representative nominates a judge. Some of them are more prone to "shaping" than others (e.g. via gerrymandering, disenfrachisement, voter suppression in all its forms) but the goal is generally to generate "favorable" election results regardless of what the people currently want.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

pyronik19 4y ago

That's what it was when they came down with Roe originally, they are just returning to NOT being a legislative body and returning this decision to where it belongs.... the legislature.

hackyhacky 4y ago
Like it or not, ever since SCOTUS seized the unconstitutional power to overturn legislation, they have been a political entity, effectively legislating. The difference with recent rulings is that they've abandoned any pretense of political independence or legitimacy.
- pyronik19 4y ago
  If that is your position, you think that when the came down with Roe V Wade that WAS political independence and legitimacy and when overturn it its not? You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's not "illegitimate" when they don't "legislate" the way YOU want. To be clear I am very moderate on abortion, I believe in the first trimester. But this is a states right issue and is a made up constitutional right.
  - hackyhacky 4y ago
    Acknowledging that SCOTUS has always been political is not controversial. But until recently, they "legislated" in a fair way, in order to maintain the appearance of neutrality. I am specifically objecting that change away from the appearance of neutrality, starting circa 2000 in Bush v Gore.
    - pyronik19 4y ago
      its fair when you get your way, its unfair when you don't? You think "Roe v Wade" is the appearance of neutrality but Dobbs isn't? What is your standard of fair vs unfair?
      - hackyhacky 4y ago

rmorey 4y ago

It can be expanded or rotated without a constitutional amendment

formerkrogemp 4y ago

> The Supreme Court is an unelected political entity. Can this be fixed? Not really. The Senate and possibly House are expected to flip this fall. Our supreme court is taking a crack at reducing civil liberties and empowering conservative culture war positions. Precedent doesn't matter apparently. Only literal, conservative-justice interpretations of the constitution matter now. They're unqualified and unfit to run our nation's highest court. Radical and idealogical. Libertarians should be angry about this development of encroachment upon personal liberty and rights.

pyronik19 4y ago
- jleyank 4y ago
  Courts should be the most liberal part of a government. Otherwise the will of the majority is total and the minorities get royally screwed. Now, the sc is looking like the least liberal part, dragging existing laws and precedents down. Will be ugly. And now, it’s fair game when things reverse to rule the shit out of the 2nd amendment. Sauce for gander. Want a gun, sign up for the militia.
  - newfriend 4y ago
    The court interprets the laws. This was a bad ruling when it was made. If you want a law, then the legislative branch can try to pass one. That's how our government was setup to work. > Want a gun, sign up for the militia. All able-bodied citizens are already part of the militia. The Militia is just The People. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    - myko 4y ago
      The militia was what became the national guard. If you read the founding father's word on the subject that's clear. Any other reading of the 2A is wishful thinking and SCOTUS rulings on the subject are an example of judicial activism.

hnbad 4y ago

You can't vote them out. There are only two ways to get rid of a Supreme Court judge: they retire or they die. As I assume you aren't asking for ways to bring about either of those scenarios in ways that would incur legal issues, the more appropriate answer is that the government can appoint additional judges, which I think is called "packing". Right now the general consensus among Democrats seems to be that they don't want to do it because it would set a precedent Republicans could exploit, although history has shown that the Republicans don't require precedents to "play dirty" (e.g. while Obama refused to appoint a replacement judge because he was on his way out of his second term, Republicans happily appointed replacement judges when Trump was on his way out, not to mention that a significant number of Republicans supported the claim that Biden "stole the election" and Trump was the real winner). If you're asking for a systemic long-term solution: no, it can't be fixed. The problem is that the Supreme Court lacks a clear mission statement and effectively acts to reinforce whichever party is in power at the time. The current SCOTUS majority leading to these decisions are "constitutional originalists". While you can argue that this is bad (or that this is still relying on interpretation and inferrences), it's impossible to say that this is wrong because it's an entirely valid interpretation of what the SCOTUS is for. If you want to "fix" the SCOTUS because it's undemocratic, the problem is that it's only one of many aspects of the structure of US government that's undemocratic. The system was never meant to allow all people to equally influence the government. The system exists as much to curtail the power of the ruling politicians as to curtail the direct power of the people. In other words SCOTUS isn't broken, you just don't like the political system itself. That's fine, but it requires a different framing in order to understand your goals and options.

nescioquid 4y ago
> There are only two ways to get rid of a Supreme Court judge: they retire or they die. They can be impeached by congress.
- hnbad 4y ago
  That would require them to have commited impeachable offenses. That bar seems to be extremely high considering the kind of conduct that doesn't seem to meet it.