Why? I agree with limits for their terms sure, but I don't see the point in expanding the court.
To help improve the system requires proper proportional representation rather than first past the post at state and federal level. Suddenly this whole issue would become irrelevant.
![]()
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
They need a proper dual system, one house using democracy to guard against tyranny, another using technocracy to guard against ignorance. Or else have different levels of democracy representing different levels of population, as the original intention was apparently supposed to do. Having multiple houses reinforcing the same party politics is pointless.
Good question.
The Supreme Court today basically acts as an elite legislature. From the partisan point of view, it would be unacceptable to have a few Republicans strike down nearly any possible Democratic reform in the coming decades. From the left philosophical point of view, a few jumped-up bureaucrats deciding the fate of millions from their cloister is unconscionable, regardless of their political orientation.
The reform proposed above is essentially centrist, in that it preserves the Supreme Court while making it a little more representative of ideology in the country (a 6/5 balance favoring Democrats would be roughly proportional).
A more thorough-going reform would be for Congress to outright legislate away the power the Supreme Court has arrogated to itself over 200 years, and start over with the larger federal court system.
In other words, the Left partisan reform would be to eliminate almost all appellate functions of the Supreme Court, replaced with, say, cross-circuit panels for ultimate appeals.Originally Posted by U.S. Const. art. III, § 2.
If Republicans reject the centrist compromise, Democrats ought to use it to justify the radical program.
Reforms of the legislature are a worthy topic, but distinct from this one.
Last edited by Montmorency; 10-11-2018 at 21:22.
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I'd be in favor of your last point, because as far as I understand it the Supreme Court wasn't intended for purposes it's currently being used for, acts as an elite legislature, like you said. I don't like the idea of packing the court as you suggested, I'd much prefer for the power of the SC to be mitigated in some fashion.
Right, but these things advance in stages. So just as "Medicare for All" jumped the debate between a public insurance option and insurance subsidies while still falling short of a total upheaval of the process and logistics of healthcare in the country, you can probably expect #packthecourt to become a consensus liberal rallying cry in the next few years: 'put more dudes on the court' is easily understandable by the general public just like 'Medicare but for all the people', it's not too wild in the current framework, and fears of it ignitiing a right-wing revolt are overstated.
(lol tfw he talks about Medicare for All like it's a done deal)
Last edited by Montmorency; 10-12-2018 at 03:05.
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Everyone knew the deal with the SCOTUS, but because of time and patience the Constitutional Convention only made Article 3 a skeleton article. Perhaps no one really had any idea of what to do with it in the first place and let future Congressmen sort it out.
But Marbury vs Madison and the advent of Judicial Review is the law of the land, and a fundamental part of Constitutional law despite its absence in the text. No Congress has seriously attempted at making the type of reforms you bring up for 200 years. Early presidents defied their rulings, but now even they have been tamed (since FDR at least). Everyone likes SCOTUS the most of the three branches because it is by far the most technocratic. With the exception of very late twentieth century to present day picks, judges were competent and prestigious in their field.
The SCOTUS has become what the Founder's tacitly approved of since they did not fight the expansion of the court's power of Judicial Review in the early 19th century. And that was a time when they were not hesitant to define SCOTUS role since they did pass the 11th Amendment shortly after a string of cases regarding state sovereignty.
Stability is not in making the picks "fair" to both sides. Good justices are invaluable and I see no reason why we should force one to step down because it's the next president's "turn" to pick one. Stability would be in creating further checks against politicizing the bench. Real reform would come in having the separate District courts nominate one of their own. The President would have his short list provided (one nominated from each district) and make his selection from that group.
The judiciary should be reformed in a direction toward insulation and away from the shifting winds in the halls of Congress.
We (as liberals) cannot delude ourselves to believe that the current SCOTUS is stacked against us because of any Republican stacking of the deck. We didn't turn out to vote for Hillary, and we lost badly because of it. Elections have consequences, adding term limits is a suggestion that loser's make and it will be interpreted that way by the public at large.
Last edited by a completely inoffensive name; 10-12-2018 at 06:09.
Complications:
1. Who cares what the Founders wanted? Let's get things done on their merits.
2. The Supreme Court has almost always been overwhelmingly reactionary. Liberals only respect it because it was merely 'somewhat conservative' during the 50s and 60s.
3. The Supreme Court has always been political in its appointment, and speaking abstractly of "checks" in the modern environment requires detachment from reality.
4. The only value of institutions is in their fruits. Why should we value a hypothetical stability that promises only loathsome results?
5. The contemporary Republican Party and the Federalist movement offer conclusive proof for the necessity and effectiveness of vanguard politics.
6. The American left needs to pass sweeping social and economic reforms in the medium-term. If 5 Republicans can block all of these, we have two options:
a. Pack up, go home, get wasted as we slouch toward oblivion.
b. Defy the courts.
I think the more reasonable option is to act early and reform the courts.
Last edited by Montmorency; 10-12-2018 at 06:26.
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Bookmarks