SCOTUS getting a makeover?

[HomerJS]

You mean when they don't rule the way you want.
Lets be honest here. You want the court to be much more liberal, and want to make sure it stays liberal. All I want the court to do is rule on the constitutionality of law, and point out how law X does or does not fit within the constitution. I don't want the court to "represent the country as a whole". The court represents the constitution, nothing else.
If were going to start remodeling the court to take control of it, we might as well just toss the entire idea of having a supreme court and install an arbiter who's appointed by the sitting president.

I don't want court positions stolen by Republicans so the court can be a real representation of the country.

 

[zinfamous]

You mean when they don't rule the way you want.
Lets be honest here. You want the court to be much more liberal, and want to make sure it stays liberal. All I want the court to do is rule on the constitutionality of law, and point out how law X does or does not fit within the constitution. I don't want the court to "represent the country as a whole". The court represents the constitution, nothing else.
If were going to start remodeling the court to take control of it, we might as well just toss the entire idea of having a supreme court and install an arbiter who's appointed by the sitting president.

We're all agreed on this, then. Though...that basically means, yes: more liberal judges and a more liberal court. It's strange that you don't understand how the constitution is a document that is fundamentally based in liberalism...and you know, also established the legal ownership and enslavement of other humans. Many contradictions, that; so it's worth noting that one shouldn't treat this bizarre constitution that we have as some holy, immutable, shrine to an ideal society couched in a system of perfect justice. It never has been that way.

There would be no remodeling of the court necessary...unless you think going back to that temporary time when decisions like Dred Scott were good for the country. What you define as remodeling, of course, depends on your perspective from a time window that you consider "normal," to compare other options against. This determination is going to vary widely depending on who you ask. So, it's not really useful to try and define what remodeling the court actually means.

 

[Greenman]

I don't want court positions stolen by Republicans so the court can be a real representation of the country.

Clearly the repubs cornholed Obama on his appointment, I don't see a way of fixing that at this point though. If Trump had been an honorable man, he would have appointed Garland to correct that mistake. Tragically, there is no honor in politics, and there is no honor in Trump.
The SC was never intended to be a representation of the country. I have no idea where that notion came from, but it's incorrect. The supreme court represents the constitution, not the people. The entire reason for lifetime appointments is so they don't have to be political. They don't have donors, pac's, or political rallies. They're beholden to no one.

 

[mect]

Clearly the repubs cornholed Obama on his appointment, I don't see a way of fixing that at this point though. If Trump had been an honorable man, he would have appointed Garland to correct that mistake. Tragically, there is no honor in politics, and there is no honor in Trump.
The SC was never intended to be a representation of the country. I have no idea where that notion came from, but it's incorrect. The supreme court represents the constitution, not the people. The entire reason for lifetime appointments is so they don't have to be political. They don't have donors, pac's, or political rallies. They're beholden to no one.

And yet, there are differences in how people interpret the constitution. There isn't one true interpretation.

The supreme court (and federal courts more generally) has already been politicized. Republican's assured that when they stalled dem appointments and then rammed through partisan judges with the express intent of changing established court rulings.

The way of fixing it is by expanding the supreme court to bring balance back to the court.

I do agree with your last point.

 

[HomerJS]

Clearly the repubs cornholed Obama on his appointment, I don't see a way of fixing that at this point though. If Trump had been an honorable man, he would have appointed Garland to correct that mistake. Tragically, there is no honor in politics, and there is no honor in Trump.
The SC was never intended to be a representation of the country. I have no idea where that notion came from, but it's incorrect. The supreme court represents the constitution, not the people. The entire reason for lifetime appointments is so they don't have to be political. They don't have donors, pac's, or political rallies. They're beholden to no one.

Are you saying the SC only works run by white conservatives? How do lifetime appointments ensure apolitical-ness? Yeah I made that up.
You realize varing ethnicities bring different perspectives to cases. That's how the Shelby case was won because some white guy said racism is no longer a problem in America. Imagine if there were a younger black male on the bench that could have set him straight.

 

[brandonbull]

Please explain the problem(s) with this bipartisan commission, in your own words.

Democrats to introduce legislation to expand Supreme Court from 9 to 13 justices

President Joe Biden announced the formation of a commission last week to study the court's structure, including the number of justices and their length of service.

www.nbcnews.com

Sounds bipartisan to me. Only a member of the Progresshevik Church would think anything about the Democrats' plan is bipartisan. Nothing is wrong about a bipartisan approach to governing if it is approached in good faith. It's a given that the Left doesn't do "in good faith."

 

[brycejones]

Democrats to introduce legislation to expand Supreme Court from 9 to 13 justices

President Joe Biden announced the formation of a commission last week to study the court's structure, including the number of justices and their length of service.

www.nbcnews.com

Sounds bipartisan to me. Only a member of the Progresshevik Church would think anything about the Democrats' plan is bipartisan. Nothing is wrong about a bipartisan approach to governing if it is approached in good faith. It's a given that the Left doesn't do "in good faith."

Well since that has nothing to do with the commission that Biden named your post is meaningless.

 

[Zorba]

This is dumb. It has to end somewhere, doesn't it? Meaning someone, somewhere must have the final say. Then the exact same criticism would apply.

The SCOTUS doesn't have unlimited power anyway. They cannot make the laws as Congress does. They cannot implement and enforce the laws as the executive does. They simply have the final say on whether a law violates the Constitution because after all, someone has to.

This SCOTUS is basically making and deleting laws. Congress refuses to provide money for something? No problem, just call it an emergency spend away. Don't like a law? Just claim it violates your religion. Money = Speech. Creating "consumer harm" as the test for anti-trust, etc.

Then you have to remember in the range of people on the bench, a conservative has won the popular vote 2 out of 9 times, yet we have extreme conservatives as 6 out of 9 judges. There is no real check on the court as no judge will ever be impeached and removed, so they can't rule and create new laws from the bench all the want.

 

[Zorba]

You mean when they don't rule the way you want.
Lets be honest here. You want the court to be much more liberal, and want to make sure it stays liberal. All I want the court to do is rule on the constitutionality of law, and point out how law X does or does not fit within the constitution. I don't want the court to "represent the country as a whole". The court represents the constitution, nothing else.
If were going to start remodeling the court to take control of it, we might as well just toss the entire idea of having a supreme court and install an arbiter who's appointed by the sitting president.

You mean like when they ignored the constitution and said the executive could spend money not allocated by the Congress? Or refused to make the executive follow the constitution in let Congress fulfill their oversight role?

 

[ivwshane]

You mean like when they ignored the constitution and said the executive could spend money not allocated by the Congress? Or refused to make the executive follow the constitution in let Congress fulfill their oversight role?

Or when then ignored precedent and change the meaning of words to allow the 2nd amendment to pertain to individual rights. Or how they ruled that businesses are people too.

The SC has already perverted the constitution, greenman doesn’t recognize it because they are ruling the way he likes.