I don't think so, I said that maybe it works out well right now.
And you said I was defending a corrupt judicial apparatus. Please support that.
What's the use?
- Thread starter Jimdamick
- Start date
And you said I was defending a corrupt judicial apparatus. Please support that.
CatHedral
Well-Known Member
I see your resistance to acting aggressively to balance Scotus as aiding and abetting the rogues. This is my opinion. I am not saying that you are doing it deliberately. In fact I consider that unlikely. However I think that is the result.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
We aren't talking about legislating morality, we are talking about addressing the drift of the country's legal system into authoritarian control.
HGCC
Well-Known Member
CatHedral
Well-Known Member
No. A solution within the law is much more robust and beneficial.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Not the kind of solution that that meets the "within the rule of law" threshold.
It's just that I see 9 vs 21 as being on a different axis from corruption. At some point, we should probably work on corruption, then 9 vs 21 doesn't matter and neither does the random alignment of events(i.e. justices dying/retiring, republican presidents/senate in office).
Does changing the number of justices prevent authoritarian control? The answer is yes it probably will right now, but that change does nothing to impact how we got here, because it doesn't stop justices from dying/retiring and it doesn't stop shitty republican presidents and senate majorities, so what would the support be for thinking that it doesn't happen again? And what message does it send? That when republicans are running the show again that all they have to do is change the number again? Why not, the dems did it, why shouldn't they? It's all tail chasing to me.
I agree that it helps right now, we all just seem to disagree on what it does for the future.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Good question. Does changing the number of justices prevent authoritarian control?
A larger number of judges, appointed for life by various administrations over time would make it harder for anybody to control the SCOTUS. So, yes, it would prevent authoritarian control. It would also prevent anarchist control too, as if that were a concern.
HGCC
Well-Known Member
...sheesh guys, can't a fella advocate violence in peace. What with your rule of law and all that jazz.
No clue what to do about it, appointing judges has become political and there isn't really any mechanism to prevent judges from exercising their personal beliefs as though they are the rule of the land, hence trying to pack the court. We have seen crap judges at the lower levels do this forever, now it's at the highest levels.
Lately it feels like a useless institution. I don't believe ABC was qualified to sit on the bench. I think putting someone in such a trusted role requires the utmost care, instead that has been corrupted, it removes faith in the system of justice. How do you hold the highest law of the land accountable?
No clue what to do about it, appointing judges has become political and there isn't really any mechanism to prevent judges from exercising their personal beliefs as though they are the rule of the land, hence trying to pack the court. We have seen crap judges at the lower levels do this forever, now it's at the highest levels.
Lately it feels like a useless institution. I don't believe ABC was qualified to sit on the bench. I think putting someone in such a trusted role requires the utmost care, instead that has been corrupted, it removes faith in the system of justice. How do you hold the highest law of the land accountable?
CatHedral
Well-Known Member
It is much easier to model the immediate future than the times after. The size of the panel can always be reduced.
But why 21? Is this number being actively discussed?
CatHedral
Well-Known Member
We have a literalist problem with the far right. I think your current line of humor doesn’t help.
It does only if you think the same 33% changeout under one president would never happen again, because that's what it took to get here. Personally, I think it's unwise to think that the very thing that happened, would not happen again. Plus, it adds a new dynamic of expanding the panel, so you'd also have to think that wouldn't happen again.
I'm not sure where 21 is from. I think I made it up, but maybe it's been discussed, not sure. Whatever number is needed to achieve a goal. Probably have to add at least three to offset the three trump added, but ideally you don't have an even number, so maybe four, but that whole "one more" thing would cause rednecks to set things on fire, so I dunno.
CatHedral
Well-Known Member
It is pejorative. 13 would be enough to avert the current disaster. So the number is chosen to make the counterargument to your thesis ridiculous.
As for rednecks setting things on fire, that is precisely the sort of speculative fear that could aid the enemy in this very real “ cold civil war”. If they do, we arrest’m. With a non-rogue highest court, they’ll get real sentences. We need to engage with resolve.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
No disagreement there. It is massively unfair to Republicans that Biden would appoint a lump of new justices. Not any less fair than what Republicans did to jigger appointments recently. Trump even said so himself. During one of the debates he was asked about the hypocrisy over the way Republicans broke norms in order to get their people appointed. "Because we won" is what he said. Well then. I thought, two could play at that game and here we are.
After the big surge in Biden-appointed judges, turnover will be determined by when judges will step down from their term. It will be harder to stack a court like Republicans did with the last two appointments. So, yes, a larger pool of justices will make it harder for fascists to pack the court using unfair antidemocratic tactics.
HGCC
Well-Known Member
Within the legal framework, expanding the court to include the most justices possible seems like the best approach. It limits the influence of any one individual, or small group, corrupting the process.
They could function more as a panel, get a wide array of views. The other thing that might help (or might not) would be to put in some mechanism for for the justices to hold each other accountable if they think somebody is making questionable rulings.
They could function more as a panel, get a wide array of views. The other thing that might help (or might not) would be to put in some mechanism for for the justices to hold each other accountable if they think somebody is making questionable rulings.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
I read that the report on how to fix the SCOTUS came back with a highly supported term limits as a long term fix. I like it too. Make it something like 10-15 years so that it outlasts the POTUS picking them, and then you are not getting radicalized judges in place that are young and under qualified that are going to maintain power for 50 years for their particular dogma.
Then IMO upping the court to 11-13 judges will take the power away from the current activist right wing judges to overrule our democracy at their political whims, and the problem of what Trump did is mitigated until their terms are up.
CatHedral
Well-Known Member
I like the term limitation. I cannot imagine the States ratifying the amendment to the Constitution. With 27 states currently with an R governor.
So I worry we may be stuck with Gamy Bony Ferret for decades.
