Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
I like the U.S. political system and consider it a democratic republic. I also think there are lots of areas ripe for improvement. Those sentiments are not incompatible.
I wouldn’t want to see the Supreme Court elected though. In fact, I think electing judges at any level is the wrong set up.
Electing judges is wrong but so are lifetime appointments which is really what makes SCOTUS undemocratic. Theoretically they should be appointed by a democratically elected executive and confirmed by a democratically elected Senate. But even under the best of circumstances, as the nation changes you end up with justices that no longer represent the desires of the electorate.
Justices should not be lifetime appointments. Put them on a 6 year schedule, with 3 replaced every 2 years.
This seems like it misses the bigger issue. Having constitutional law flip 180 every presidential term would be very bad for stability.
...which is why the law has generally been slow to change
When something becomes established law they are loath to change it outside major circumstances. But now we have the worst court in my lifetime playing fuckin Calvinball and doing batshit stuff.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
what I’m advocating for here is social and economic disruption to the point where the ruling class can’t ignore it anymore
Especially when the other half of the electorate are happily cheering on their own subjugation, as long as they're not at the very bottom of the pile.
That’s the real problem. If it was the top 1% of the elite banning abortion against the people’s will, a popular uprising could prevent it. But banning abortion is almost universally popular among conservative voters of all classes, and a lot of others aren’t terribly bothered - abortion is a “nice to have” but they don’t see it as a thing they are likely to need (or likely to need again) because people are bad at planning.
Yeah, but Republicans are planning to ban birth control.
I like the U.S. political system and consider it a democratic republic. I also think there are lots of areas ripe for improvement. Those sentiments are not incompatible.
I wouldn’t want to see the Supreme Court elected though. In fact, I think electing judges at any level is the wrong set up.
Electing judges is wrong but so are lifetime appointments which is really what makes SCOTUS undemocratic. Theoretically they should be appointed by a democratically elected executive and confirmed by a democratically elected Senate. But even under the best of circumstances, as the nation changes you end up with justices that no longer represent the desires of the electorate.
Justices should not be lifetime appointments. Put them on a 6 year schedule, with 3 replaced every 2 years.
This seems like it misses the bigger issue. Having constitutional law flip 180 every presidential term would be very bad for stability.
As opposed to having our legislative or executive branches potentially flip every 2-4 years?
Clarence Thomas was appointed by George Bush Sr in 1991. The fact that he's still serving right now is entirely against democracy, because the people have no voice in his continued service. Having an unelected body deciding the course of our country for the next 30+ years (based on the age of recent appointees) is also undemocratic.
And it's not like the current SC is exactly good for stability, in that they are reversing Roe Vs. Wade, have decided that corporations are people, that money is free speech, that the VRA no long applies because racism is solved, etc.
I like the U.S. political system and consider it a democratic republic. I also think there are lots of areas ripe for improvement. Those sentiments are not incompatible.
I wouldn’t want to see the Supreme Court elected though. In fact, I think electing judges at any level is the wrong set up.
Electing judges is wrong but so are lifetime appointments which is really what makes SCOTUS undemocratic. Theoretically they should be appointed by a democratically elected executive and confirmed by a democratically elected Senate. But even under the best of circumstances, as the nation changes you end up with justices that no longer represent the desires of the electorate.
The seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. A full term is fourteen years. One term begins every two years, on February 1 of even-numbered years. A member who serves a full term may not be reappointed. A member who completes an unexpired portion of a term may be reappointed. All terms end on their statutory date regardless of the date on which the member is sworn into office.
The Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the Board are named by the President from among the members and are confirmed by the Senate. They serve a term of four years. A member's term on the Board is not affected by his or her status as Chairman or Vice Chairman.
I like the U.S. political system and consider it a democratic republic. I also think there are lots of areas ripe for improvement. Those sentiments are not incompatible.
I wouldn’t want to see the Supreme Court elected though. In fact, I think electing judges at any level is the wrong set up.
Electing judges is wrong but so are lifetime appointments which is really what makes SCOTUS undemocratic. Theoretically they should be appointed by a democratically elected executive and confirmed by a democratically elected Senate. But even under the best of circumstances, as the nation changes you end up with justices that no longer represent the desires of the electorate.
Justices should not be lifetime appointments. Put them on a 6 year schedule, with 3 replaced every 2 years.
This seems like it misses the bigger issue. Having constitutional law flip 180 every presidential term would be very bad for stability.
As opposed to having our legislative or executive branches potentially flip every 2-4 years?
Clarence Thomas was appointed by George Bush Sr in 1991. The fact that he's still serving right now is entirely against democracy, because the people have no voice in his continued service. Having an unelected body deciding the course of our country for the next 30+ years (based on the age of recent appointees) is also undemocratic.
And it's not like the current SC is exactly good for stability, in that they are reversing Roe Vs. Wade, have decided that corporations are people, that money is free speech, that the VRA no long applies because racism is solved, etc.
Something being undemocratic by definition does not mean it's undemocratic in the sense of "functionally a democracy"
We can't have national elections for every single government position.
I like the U.S. political system and consider it a democratic republic. I also think there are lots of areas ripe for improvement. Those sentiments are not incompatible.
I wouldn’t want to see the Supreme Court elected though. In fact, I think electing judges at any level is the wrong set up.
Electing judges is wrong but so are lifetime appointments which is really what makes SCOTUS undemocratic. Theoretically they should be appointed by a democratically elected executive and confirmed by a democratically elected Senate. But even under the best of circumstances, as the nation changes you end up with justices that no longer represent the desires of the electorate.
The seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. A full term is fourteen years. One term begins every two years, on February 1 of even-numbered years. A member who serves a full term may not be reappointed. A member who completes an unexpired portion of a term may be reappointed. All terms end on their statutory date regardless of the date on which the member is sworn into office.
The Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the Board are named by the President from among the members and are confirmed by the Senate. They serve a term of four years. A member's term on the Board is not affected by his or her status as Chairman or Vice Chairman.
The only other way I like is that you have it be lifetime appointments, but, you appoint a new one every 2 years (1st year of term and 3rd year of term) and then if that means there are 11 or 12 or 30 people on the court, so be it. If there's a tie, then its a tie, either figure it out between yourselves or wait for the next appointee to break the tie. But, then that creates a 'wish for the bad justices to die of old age quicker' problem.
Probably best to have 18 year terms, new one every other year. If a justice quits or dies, remaining 8 pick the temporary replacement to serve the remainder of the 18 year term.
I like the U.S. political system and consider it a democratic republic. I also think there are lots of areas ripe for improvement. Those sentiments are not incompatible.
I wouldn’t want to see the Supreme Court elected though. In fact, I think electing judges at any level is the wrong set up.
Electing judges is wrong but so are lifetime appointments which is really what makes SCOTUS undemocratic. Theoretically they should be appointed by a democratically elected executive and confirmed by a democratically elected Senate. But even under the best of circumstances, as the nation changes you end up with justices that no longer represent the desires of the electorate.
Justices should not be lifetime appointments. Put them on a 6 year schedule, with 3 replaced every 2 years.
This seems like it misses the bigger issue. Having constitutional law flip 180 every presidential term would be very bad for stability.
As opposed to having our legislative or executive branches potentially flip every 2-4 years?
Clarence Thomas was appointed by George Bush Sr in 1991. The fact that he's still serving right now is entirely against democracy, because the people have no voice in his continued service. Having an unelected body deciding the course of our country for the next 30+ years (based on the age of recent appointees) is also undemocratic.
And it's not like the current SC is exactly good for stability, in that they are reversing Roe Vs. Wade, have decided that corporations are people, that money is free speech, that the VRA no long applies because racism is solved, etc.
Something being undemocratic by definition does not mean it's undemocratic in the sense of "functionally a democracy"
We can't have national elections for every single government position.
Also there are plenty of places that are functional democracies that do have long serving judiciaries (along with election winners losing popular votes, unelected / undemocratic / unrepresentative bodies, etc). It's unlikely that the US will just magically be fixed by having shorter judicial terms
I like the U.S. political system and consider it a democratic republic. I also think there are lots of areas ripe for improvement. Those sentiments are not incompatible.
I wouldn’t want to see the Supreme Court elected though. In fact, I think electing judges at any level is the wrong set up.
Electing judges is wrong but so are lifetime appointments which is really what makes SCOTUS undemocratic. Theoretically they should be appointed by a democratically elected executive and confirmed by a democratically elected Senate. But even under the best of circumstances, as the nation changes you end up with justices that no longer represent the desires of the electorate.
Justices should not be lifetime appointments. Put them on a 6 year schedule, with 3 replaced every 2 years.
This seems like it misses the bigger issue. Having constitutional law flip 180 every presidential term would be very bad for stability.
As opposed to having our legislative or executive branches potentially flip every 2-4 years?
Yes those are the branches that are intended to be directly enacting the will of the electorate.
Clarence Thomas was appointed by George Bush Sr in 1991. The fact that he's still serving right now is entirely against democracy, because the people have no voice in his continued service. Having an unelected body deciding the course of our country for the next 30+ years (based on the age of recent appointees) is also undemocratic.
You might as well argue that the Constitution is undemocratic because it was written by some guys centuries ago. SCOTUS has gained an outsized role because of how dysfunctional the other branches have become and how polarized the country has become. If it wanted to the legislature could impeach Clarence Thomas. Or ammend the Constitution. Or pack the court.
And it's not like the current SC is exactly good for stability, in that they are reversing Roe Vs. Wade, have decided that corporations are people, that money is free speech, that the VRA no long applies because racism is solved, etc.
Yes, choosing to throw out stare decisis and make increasingly blatant partisan decisions should be giving anyone interested in a stable country pause. I don't know if there is a way to climb down from this ledge now that roughly half the country no longer sees the other half as legitimate fellow citizens that they can coexist with and vice versa but I know it's a bad situation to be in.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
+2
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
You might as well argue that the Constitution is undemocratic because it was written by some guys centuries ago.
You mean the document that only allowed white landowners to vote?
Perish the thought.
By modern standards, the view of the founders on what constituted a democracy is not a democracy, correct.
I find it funny that we're somehow besmirching the good name of democracy by dogging on the people who brought us *checks notes* the Senate and the 3/5ths Compromise.
I like the U.S. political system and consider it a democratic republic. I also think there are lots of areas ripe for improvement. Those sentiments are not incompatible.
I wouldn’t want to see the Supreme Court elected though. In fact, I think electing judges at any level is the wrong set up.
Electing judges is wrong but so are lifetime appointments which is really what makes SCOTUS undemocratic. Theoretically they should be appointed by a democratically elected executive and confirmed by a democratically elected Senate. But even under the best of circumstances, as the nation changes you end up with justices that no longer represent the desires of the electorate.
Justices should not be lifetime appointments. Put them on a 6 year schedule, with 3 replaced every 2 years.
This seems like it misses the bigger issue. Having constitutional law flip 180 every presidential term would be very bad for stability.
As opposed to having our legislative or executive branches potentially flip every 2-4 years?
Clarence Thomas was appointed by George Bush Sr in 1991. The fact that he's still serving right now is entirely against democracy, because the people have no voice in his continued service. Having an unelected body deciding the course of our country for the next 30+ years (based on the age of recent appointees) is also undemocratic.
And it's not like the current SC is exactly good for stability, in that they are reversing Roe Vs. Wade, have decided that corporations are people, that money is free speech, that the VRA no long applies because racism is solved, etc.
Something being undemocratic by definition does not mean it's undemocratic in the sense of "functionally a democracy"
We can't have national elections for every single government position.
Also there are plenty of places that are functional democracies that do have long serving judiciaries (along with election winners losing popular votes, unelected / undemocratic / unrepresentative bodies, etc). It's unlikely that the US will just magically be fixed by having shorter judicial terms
It probably would actually. The biggest issue right now is that huge swaths of the court has been appointed by only a few presidents. Trump served one term and appointed 3 justices for the most extreme example.
It's not that long-serving judiciaries are inherently bad. It can work. The problem is that the american judiciary is heavily politicized to the point that they are functionally just a super-legislature. Given that, strictly controlling how they get elected so it matches up with who wins elections is a good short-term solution.
In constitutional times, a lifetime appointment would probably have only meant like 10-20 years as well before consumption got you.
Not really. Back then if you managed to make it to adulthood, your odds of living a long life weren't that bad. Especially for anyone rich enough to become a SCOTUS justice. There's plenty of justices from the pre-Civil-War period who served like 30 years.
+8
Options
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
I mean, overall the real problem is the 70 million+ people who don't want to live in a functioning democracy. That's not really fixed by term limits. But term limits can be a piece of the puzzle
I like the U.S. political system and consider it a democratic republic. I also think there are lots of areas ripe for improvement. Those sentiments are not incompatible.
I wouldn’t want to see the Supreme Court elected though. In fact, I think electing judges at any level is the wrong set up.
Electing judges is wrong but so are lifetime appointments which is really what makes SCOTUS undemocratic. Theoretically they should be appointed by a democratically elected executive and confirmed by a democratically elected Senate. But even under the best of circumstances, as the nation changes you end up with justices that no longer represent the desires of the electorate.
Justices should not be lifetime appointments. Put them on a 6 year schedule, with 3 replaced every 2 years.
This seems like it misses the bigger issue. Having constitutional law flip 180 every presidential term would be very bad for stability.
As opposed to having our legislative or executive branches potentially flip every 2-4 years?
Clarence Thomas was appointed by George Bush Sr in 1991. The fact that he's still serving right now is entirely against democracy, because the people have no voice in his continued service. Having an unelected body deciding the course of our country for the next 30+ years (based on the age of recent appointees) is also undemocratic.
And it's not like the current SC is exactly good for stability, in that they are reversing Roe Vs. Wade, have decided that corporations are people, that money is free speech, that the VRA no long applies because racism is solved, etc.
Something being undemocratic by definition does not mean it's undemocratic in the sense of "functionally a democracy"
We can't have national elections for every single government position.
Also there are plenty of places that are functional democracies that do have long serving judiciaries (along with election winners losing popular votes, unelected / undemocratic / unrepresentative bodies, etc). It's unlikely that the US will just magically be fixed by having shorter judicial terms
It probably would actually. The biggest issue right now is that huge swaths of the court has been appointed by only a few presidents. Trump served one term and appointed 3 justices for the most extreme example.
It's not that long-serving judiciaries are inherently bad. It can work. The problem is that the american judiciary is heavily politicized to the point that they are functionally just a super-legislature. Given that, strictly controlling how they get elected so it matches up with who wins elections is a good short-term solution.
That's not fixing anything though, it's maybe papering over some cracks. There have been more R presidents than D (post-Roosevelt's 4 terms) after all and even when it's even, all that would do is give effectively clockwork alternating control of the court, that's probably even worse for decision stability too
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
You might as well argue that the Constitution is undemocratic because it was written by some guys centuries ago.
You mean the document that only allowed white landowners to vote?
Perish the thought.
By modern standards, the view of the founders on what constituted a democracy is not a democracy, correct.
I find it funny that we're somehow besmirching the good name of democracy from the people who brought us *checks notes* the Senate and the 3/5ths Compromise.
Just try and imagine someone calling a modern system where only the rich, white men have a vote a democracy.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
In constitutional times, a lifetime appointment would probably have only meant like 10-20 years as well before consumption got you.
Not really. Back then if you managed to make it to adulthood, your odds of living a long life weren't that bad. Especially for anyone rich enough to become a SCOTUS justice. There's plenty of justices from the pre-Civil-War period who served like 30 years.
About as many made it to twenty years as were gone within ten from that period. It's still a far cry from the default expectation is 25+ years. It's not until you get to about the 1950s where virtually every justice is 20+ years.
I like the U.S. political system and consider it a democratic republic. I also think there are lots of areas ripe for improvement. Those sentiments are not incompatible.
I wouldn’t want to see the Supreme Court elected though. In fact, I think electing judges at any level is the wrong set up.
Electing judges is wrong but so are lifetime appointments which is really what makes SCOTUS undemocratic. Theoretically they should be appointed by a democratically elected executive and confirmed by a democratically elected Senate. But even under the best of circumstances, as the nation changes you end up with justices that no longer represent the desires of the electorate.
Justices should not be lifetime appointments. Put them on a 6 year schedule, with 3 replaced every 2 years.
This seems like it misses the bigger issue. Having constitutional law flip 180 every presidential term would be very bad for stability.
As opposed to having our legislative or executive branches potentially flip every 2-4 years?
Clarence Thomas was appointed by George Bush Sr in 1991. The fact that he's still serving right now is entirely against democracy, because the people have no voice in his continued service. Having an unelected body deciding the course of our country for the next 30+ years (based on the age of recent appointees) is also undemocratic.
And it's not like the current SC is exactly good for stability, in that they are reversing Roe Vs. Wade, have decided that corporations are people, that money is free speech, that the VRA no long applies because racism is solved, etc.
Something being undemocratic by definition does not mean it's undemocratic in the sense of "functionally a democracy"
We can't have national elections for every single government position.
Also there are plenty of places that are functional democracies that do have long serving judiciaries (along with election winners losing popular votes, unelected / undemocratic / unrepresentative bodies, etc). It's unlikely that the US will just magically be fixed by having shorter judicial terms
It probably would actually. The biggest issue right now is that huge swaths of the court has been appointed by only a few presidents. Trump served one term and appointed 3 justices for the most extreme example.
It's not that long-serving judiciaries are inherently bad. It can work. The problem is that the american judiciary is heavily politicized to the point that they are functionally just a super-legislature. Given that, strictly controlling how they get elected so it matches up with who wins elections is a good short-term solution.
That's not fixing anything though, it's maybe papering over some cracks. There have been more R presidents than D (post-Roosevelt's 4 terms) after all and even when it's even, all that would do is give effectively clockwork alternating control of the court, that's probably even worse for decision stability too
It would absolutely fix things if you set it up in even a simple non-stupid way. So assuming you go with the like the Federal Reserve Board of Governors suggestion above, you replace a justice every 2 years so they serve fixed 18 year terms. That would make the current court something like:
1 Biden
2 Trump
4 Obama
2 Bush
Conservatives would only have a majority on the court for basically Trump's presidency (when the last Clinton justice gets replaced by a Trump justice). Before that you'd have to go back to early 90s maybe?
And yeah, the whole idea is that you would end up with the court gradually reflecting who is winning elections over the last 18 years. But that's entirely the point. Because all the current system does is the same thing but in a way more lopsided and random fashion. Which is how Trump, a 1 term loser of a president, gets to appoint fully 1/3rd of the entire supreme court.
Decision stability is irrelevant as long as the SCOTUS is a partisan institution full of party-line hacks. As we are literally seeing right now with this court. They don't give a shit about even the precedents they set a month earlier. If you can't stop the courts from being a super-legislature, your best bet is simply to force said super-legislature to reflect voting trends over time.
In constitutional times, a lifetime appointment would probably have only meant like 10-20 years as well before consumption got you.
Not really. Back then if you managed to make it to adulthood, your odds of living a long life weren't that bad. Especially for anyone rich enough to become a SCOTUS justice. There's plenty of justices from the pre-Civil-War period who served like 30 years.
About as many made it to twenty years as were gone within ten from that period. It's still a far cry from the default expectation is 25+ years. It's not until you get to about the 1950s where virtually every justice is 20+ years.
It wasn't unusual though and the system was not set up with the expectation that these people would be dying like flies after 10 years on the bench.
I like the U.S. political system and consider it a democratic republic. I also think there are lots of areas ripe for improvement. Those sentiments are not incompatible.
I wouldn’t want to see the Supreme Court elected though. In fact, I think electing judges at any level is the wrong set up.
Electing judges is wrong but so are lifetime appointments which is really what makes SCOTUS undemocratic. Theoretically they should be appointed by a democratically elected executive and confirmed by a democratically elected Senate. But even under the best of circumstances, as the nation changes you end up with justices that no longer represent the desires of the electorate.
Justices should not be lifetime appointments. Put them on a 6 year schedule, with 3 replaced every 2 years.
This seems like it misses the bigger issue. Having constitutional law flip 180 every presidential term would be very bad for stability.
As opposed to having our legislative or executive branches potentially flip every 2-4 years?
Yes those are the branches that are intended to be directly enacting the will of the electorate.
Clarence Thomas was appointed by George Bush Sr in 1991. The fact that he's still serving right now is entirely against democracy, because the people have no voice in his continued service. Having an unelected body deciding the course of our country for the next 30+ years (based on the age of recent appointees) is also undemocratic.
You might as well argue that the Constitution is undemocratic because it was written by some guys centuries ago. SCOTUS has gained an outsized role because of how dysfunctional the other branches have become and how polarized the country has become. If it wanted to the legislature could impeach Clarence Thomas. Or ammend the Constitution. Or pack the court.
And it's not like the current SC is exactly good for stability, in that they are reversing Roe Vs. Wade, have decided that corporations are people, that money is free speech, that the VRA no long applies because racism is solved, etc.
Yes, choosing to throw out stare decisis and make increasingly blatant partisan decisions should be giving anyone interested in a stable country pause. I don't know if there is a way to climb down from this ledge now that roughly half the country no longer sees the other half as legitimate fellow citizens that they can coexist with and vice versa but I know it's a bad situation to be in.
Conservatives refuse to coexist with everyone else because the idea of people who are not like them living happy, fulfilled lives is infuriating to them, for some reason.
The rest of us can't coexist with conservatives because their ultimate goal is to either convert or eradicate us.
Each side is an existential threat to the other, but both sides are not equally at fault.
I like the U.S. political system and consider it a democratic republic. I also think there are lots of areas ripe for improvement. Those sentiments are not incompatible.
I wouldn’t want to see the Supreme Court elected though. In fact, I think electing judges at any level is the wrong set up.
Electing judges is wrong but so are lifetime appointments which is really what makes SCOTUS undemocratic. Theoretically they should be appointed by a democratically elected executive and confirmed by a democratically elected Senate. But even under the best of circumstances, as the nation changes you end up with justices that no longer represent the desires of the electorate.
Justices should not be lifetime appointments. Put them on a 6 year schedule, with 3 replaced every 2 years.
This seems like it misses the bigger issue. Having constitutional law flip 180 every presidential term would be very bad for stability.
As opposed to having our legislative or executive branches potentially flip every 2-4 years?
Clarence Thomas was appointed by George Bush Sr in 1991. The fact that he's still serving right now is entirely against democracy, because the people have no voice in his continued service. Having an unelected body deciding the course of our country for the next 30+ years (based on the age of recent appointees) is also undemocratic.
And it's not like the current SC is exactly good for stability, in that they are reversing Roe Vs. Wade, have decided that corporations are people, that money is free speech, that the VRA no long applies because racism is solved, etc.
Something being undemocratic by definition does not mean it's undemocratic in the sense of "functionally a democracy"
We can't have national elections for every single government position.
Also there are plenty of places that are functional democracies that do have long serving judiciaries (along with election winners losing popular votes, unelected / undemocratic / unrepresentative bodies, etc). It's unlikely that the US will just magically be fixed by having shorter judicial terms
It probably would actually. The biggest issue right now is that huge swaths of the court has been appointed by only a few presidents. Trump served one term and appointed 3 justices for the most extreme example.
It's not that long-serving judiciaries are inherently bad. It can work. The problem is that the american judiciary is heavily politicized to the point that they are functionally just a super-legislature. Given that, strictly controlling how they get elected so it matches up with who wins elections is a good short-term solution.
That's not fixing anything though, it's maybe papering over some cracks. There have been more R presidents than D (post-Roosevelt's 4 terms) after all and even when it's even, all that would do is give effectively clockwork alternating control of the court, that's probably even worse for decision stability too
It would absolutely fix things if you set it up in even a simple non-stupid way. So assuming you go with the like the Federal Reserve Board of Governors suggestion above, you replace a justice every 2 years so they serve fixed 18 year terms. That would make the current court something like:
1 Biden
2 Trump
4 Obama
2 Bush
Conservatives would only have a majority on the court for basically Trump's presidency (when the last Clinton justice gets replaced by a Trump justice). Before that you'd have to go back to early 90s maybe?
And yeah, the whole idea is that you would end up with the court gradually reflecting who is winning elections over the last 18 years. But that's entirely the point. Because all the current system does is the same thing but in a way more lopsided and random fashion. Which is how Trump, a 1 term loser of a president, gets to appoint fully 1/3rd of the entire supreme court.
Decision stability is irrelevant as long as the SCOTUS is a partisan institution full of party-line hacks. As we are literally seeing right now with this court. They don't give a shit about even the precedents they set a month earlier. If you can't stop the courts from being a super-legislature, your best bet is simply to force said super-legislature to reflect voting trends over time.
If you did that then every president appoints 2 justices, so you can just look at 5 term sequences
Biden gets a D court
Trump gets a R court
Obama gets a D court both terms
Bush II gets a R court both terms
Clinton gets a R court both terms (and from there it's all R until LBJ)
And the only reason Trump got 3 is the Senate's fault, what's to stop republican senators from just holding up every democrat's confirmation still? That doesn't seem like a SC term issue. 2 justices on a single term is still above average but not by that much as you can expect each term to replace on average at least one
I like the U.S. political system and consider it a democratic republic. I also think there are lots of areas ripe for improvement. Those sentiments are not incompatible.
I wouldn’t want to see the Supreme Court elected though. In fact, I think electing judges at any level is the wrong set up.
Electing judges is wrong but so are lifetime appointments which is really what makes SCOTUS undemocratic. Theoretically they should be appointed by a democratically elected executive and confirmed by a democratically elected Senate. But even under the best of circumstances, as the nation changes you end up with justices that no longer represent the desires of the electorate.
Justices should not be lifetime appointments. Put them on a 6 year schedule, with 3 replaced every 2 years.
This seems like it misses the bigger issue. Having constitutional law flip 180 every presidential term would be very bad for stability.
As opposed to having our legislative or executive branches potentially flip every 2-4 years?
Clarence Thomas was appointed by George Bush Sr in 1991. The fact that he's still serving right now is entirely against democracy, because the people have no voice in his continued service. Having an unelected body deciding the course of our country for the next 30+ years (based on the age of recent appointees) is also undemocratic.
And it's not like the current SC is exactly good for stability, in that they are reversing Roe Vs. Wade, have decided that corporations are people, that money is free speech, that the VRA no long applies because racism is solved, etc.
Something being undemocratic by definition does not mean it's undemocratic in the sense of "functionally a democracy"
We can't have national elections for every single government position.
Also there are plenty of places that are functional democracies that do have long serving judiciaries (along with election winners losing popular votes, unelected / undemocratic / unrepresentative bodies, etc). It's unlikely that the US will just magically be fixed by having shorter judicial terms
It probably would actually. The biggest issue right now is that huge swaths of the court has been appointed by only a few presidents. Trump served one term and appointed 3 justices for the most extreme example.
It's not that long-serving judiciaries are inherently bad. It can work. The problem is that the american judiciary is heavily politicized to the point that they are functionally just a super-legislature. Given that, strictly controlling how they get elected so it matches up with who wins elections is a good short-term solution.
That's not fixing anything though, it's maybe papering over some cracks. There have been more R presidents than D (post-Roosevelt's 4 terms) after all and even when it's even, all that would do is give effectively clockwork alternating control of the court, that's probably even worse for decision stability too
It would absolutely fix things if you set it up in even a simple non-stupid way. So assuming you go with the like the Federal Reserve Board of Governors suggestion above, you replace a justice every 2 years so they serve fixed 18 year terms. That would make the current court something like:
1 Biden
2 Trump
4 Obama
2 Bush
Conservatives would only have a majority on the court for basically Trump's presidency (when the last Clinton justice gets replaced by a Trump justice). Before that you'd have to go back to early 90s maybe?
And yeah, the whole idea is that you would end up with the court gradually reflecting who is winning elections over the last 18 years. But that's entirely the point. Because all the current system does is the same thing but in a way more lopsided and random fashion. Which is how Trump, a 1 term loser of a president, gets to appoint fully 1/3rd of the entire supreme court.
Decision stability is irrelevant as long as the SCOTUS is a partisan institution full of party-line hacks. As we are literally seeing right now with this court. They don't give a shit about even the precedents they set a month earlier. If you can't stop the courts from being a super-legislature, your best bet is simply to force said super-legislature to reflect voting trends over time.
If you did that then every president appoints 2 justices, so you can just look at 5 term sequences
Biden gets a D court
Trump gets a R court
Obama gets a D court both terms
Bush II gets a R court both terms
Clinton gets a R court both terms (and from there it's all R until LBJ)
And the only reason Trump got 3 is the Senate's fault, what's to stop republican senators from just holding up every democrat's confirmation still? That doesn't seem like a SC term issue. 2 justices on a single term is still above average but not by that much as you can expect each term to replace on average at least one
As you may have noticed, there's a big difference in terms of WHEN you get those justices, and an extra 1 your way is a bit of a big deal.
I should not have to hope that the supreme court all eats some bad fish in order to preserve democracy. I should be able to say, "If I vote for Biden, things will move my way by two points"
I like the U.S. political system and consider it a democratic republic. I also think there are lots of areas ripe for improvement. Those sentiments are not incompatible.
I wouldn’t want to see the Supreme Court elected though. In fact, I think electing judges at any level is the wrong set up.
Electing judges is wrong but so are lifetime appointments which is really what makes SCOTUS undemocratic. Theoretically they should be appointed by a democratically elected executive and confirmed by a democratically elected Senate. But even under the best of circumstances, as the nation changes you end up with justices that no longer represent the desires of the electorate.
Justices should not be lifetime appointments. Put them on a 6 year schedule, with 3 replaced every 2 years.
This seems like it misses the bigger issue. Having constitutional law flip 180 every presidential term would be very bad for stability.
As opposed to having our legislative or executive branches potentially flip every 2-4 years?
Clarence Thomas was appointed by George Bush Sr in 1991. The fact that he's still serving right now is entirely against democracy, because the people have no voice in his continued service. Having an unelected body deciding the course of our country for the next 30+ years (based on the age of recent appointees) is also undemocratic.
And it's not like the current SC is exactly good for stability, in that they are reversing Roe Vs. Wade, have decided that corporations are people, that money is free speech, that the VRA no long applies because racism is solved, etc.
Something being undemocratic by definition does not mean it's undemocratic in the sense of "functionally a democracy"
We can't have national elections for every single government position.
Also there are plenty of places that are functional democracies that do have long serving judiciaries (along with election winners losing popular votes, unelected / undemocratic / unrepresentative bodies, etc). It's unlikely that the US will just magically be fixed by having shorter judicial terms
It probably would actually. The biggest issue right now is that huge swaths of the court has been appointed by only a few presidents. Trump served one term and appointed 3 justices for the most extreme example.
It's not that long-serving judiciaries are inherently bad. It can work. The problem is that the american judiciary is heavily politicized to the point that they are functionally just a super-legislature. Given that, strictly controlling how they get elected so it matches up with who wins elections is a good short-term solution.
That's not fixing anything though, it's maybe papering over some cracks. There have been more R presidents than D (post-Roosevelt's 4 terms) after all and even when it's even, all that would do is give effectively clockwork alternating control of the court, that's probably even worse for decision stability too
It would absolutely fix things if you set it up in even a simple non-stupid way. So assuming you go with the like the Federal Reserve Board of Governors suggestion above, you replace a justice every 2 years so they serve fixed 18 year terms. That would make the current court something like:
1 Biden
2 Trump
4 Obama
2 Bush
Conservatives would only have a majority on the court for basically Trump's presidency (when the last Clinton justice gets replaced by a Trump justice). Before that you'd have to go back to early 90s maybe?
And yeah, the whole idea is that you would end up with the court gradually reflecting who is winning elections over the last 18 years. But that's entirely the point. Because all the current system does is the same thing but in a way more lopsided and random fashion. Which is how Trump, a 1 term loser of a president, gets to appoint fully 1/3rd of the entire supreme court.
Decision stability is irrelevant as long as the SCOTUS is a partisan institution full of party-line hacks. As we are literally seeing right now with this court. They don't give a shit about even the precedents they set a month earlier. If you can't stop the courts from being a super-legislature, your best bet is simply to force said super-legislature to reflect voting trends over time.
If you did that then every president appoints 2 justices, so you can just look at 5 term sequences
Biden gets a D court
Trump gets a R court
Obama gets a D court both terms
Bush II gets a R court both terms
Clinton gets a R court both terms (and from there it's all R until LBJ)
And the only reason Trump got 3 is the Senate's fault, what's to stop republican senators from just holding up every democrat's confirmation still? That doesn't seem like a SC term issue. 2 justices on a single term is still above average but not by that much as you can expect each term to replace on average at least one
You are just completely ignoring that Trump only served 1 term. 3 justices in Trumps 4 years vs 2 in Obama's 8 years, 2 in GWB's 8 year and 2 in Clinton's 8 years. That's a huge discrepancy there. Which fixed terms address simply and directly.
Just adding that what happened to Garland has happened several times in the USs history
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
A one term president that didn’t even get a majority of the popular vote has put three fucking assholes on that bench.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
Just adding that what happened to Garland has happened several times in the USs history
No, it hasn't. The only prior cases are a justice dying in the lame duck window basically. Garland was nominated in what, March?
There's several ways to avoid the Garland problem, but I think the cleanest is to state that if the appointment for a given Congress has not been filled by the end of that Congress, the current POTUS may continue putting forth candidates to future Congresses until one is approved. That may require an amendment though, as opposed to some form of automatic approval clause that can be executed entirely within the Senate rules (something like any appointment left pending for more than 30 days while Congress is in session is presumed approved - set it up so the clock is only stopped by a recess, which enables POTUS to make a recess appointment anyways)?
My opinion is that every presidency should get 2 justices, no confirmation needed. The president won the election to be president, they should appoint the justices. End of story. You get 1 on year 1 and 1 on year 3.
I'm of the opinion that the court should be large enough that not every justice hears every case, and they are randomly assigned. Maybe with some form of limited en banc. I want to limit the ability to shop cases and force them into a favorable environment. Which is exactly how we are getting the Roe decision (so many "let's pass awful laws that will get a legal challenge until we find one that SCOTUS will use to strike down Roe" in the last 15 years).
And what if a Justice dies? Do they get to appoint the replacement as well?
Depends on the model. You can just have an uncapped court with every president adding 2 for life, or term limits and figure it out.
In a capped model, you could simply extend the term of the outgoing justice by two years if the justice to be replaced that session was not the one who died.
Just adding that what happened to Garland has happened several times in the USs history
No, it hasn't. The only prior cases are a justice dying in the lame duck window basically. Garland was nominated in what, March?
There's several ways to avoid the Garland problem, but I think the cleanest is to state that if the appointment for a given Congress has not been filled by the end of that Congress, the current POTUS may continue putting forth candidates to future Congresses until one is approved. That may require an amendment though, as opposed to some form of automatic approval clause that can be executed entirely within the Senate rules (something like any appointment left pending for more than 30 days while Congress is in session is presumed approved - set it up so the clock is only stopped by a recess, which enables POTUS to make a recess appointment anyways)?
There’s a bunch of nominees that lapsed because the senate just did nothing, all with the senate majority being a different party than the president
Lame duck nominees that lapsed:
Crittenden
Micou
Nominated during term and senate just tabled/postponed voting or just did nothing:
Walworth
King
Bradford
Badger
Black
Stanbery (hilariously enough, rather than consider Stanbery’s nom, the Republican congress instead passed a law reducing the size of the court and thus eliminating the seat Stanbery was nominated for!)
Matthews (Hayes original nomination was ignored, but Garfield immediately renominated him and he was confirmed by the new senate- what might have happened with Garland had Clinton beat Trump)
Hornblower
Basically all of these cases are the president and senate being on opposite sides of whether to give black people rights
And what if a Justice dies? Do they get to appoint the replacement as well?
Under my proposal yes, the President would appoint a new justice to serve the remaining portion of the deceased's term. It should be much less likely to happen, though, if it's serve for 6 years, than it will for a lifetime appointment. There's no impetus for someone who might be replaced by the next President to literally work themselves to death.
I like the U.S. political system and consider it a democratic republic. I also think there are lots of areas ripe for improvement. Those sentiments are not incompatible.
I wouldn’t want to see the Supreme Court elected though. In fact, I think electing judges at any level is the wrong set up.
Electing judges is wrong but so are lifetime appointments which is really what makes SCOTUS undemocratic. Theoretically they should be appointed by a democratically elected executive and confirmed by a democratically elected Senate. But even under the best of circumstances, as the nation changes you end up with justices that no longer represent the desires of the electorate.
Justices should not be lifetime appointments. Put them on a 6 year schedule, with 3 replaced every 2 years.
This seems like it misses the bigger issue. Having constitutional law flip 180 every presidential term would be very bad for stability.
As opposed to having our legislative or executive branches potentially flip every 2-4 years?
Clarence Thomas was appointed by George Bush Sr in 1991. The fact that he's still serving right now is entirely against democracy, because the people have no voice in his continued service. Having an unelected body deciding the course of our country for the next 30+ years (based on the age of recent appointees) is also undemocratic.
And it's not like the current SC is exactly good for stability, in that they are reversing Roe Vs. Wade, have decided that corporations are people, that money is free speech, that the VRA no long applies because racism is solved, etc.
Something being undemocratic by definition does not mean it's undemocratic in the sense of "functionally a democracy"
We can't have national elections for every single government position.
I am not suggesting that all officials be elected. Besides, we can't have elections for SCOTUS unless we amend the constitution. Appointments are supposed to represent the will of the people, albeit with one degree of removal from direct elections.
Considering you had to be 18 to vote for George Bush Sr, who was elected in 1988, that means you'd have needed to be born in 1970 or earlier to have had any influence on Clarence Thomas's appointment to SCOTUS. According to some quick googling, approximately 2/3rds of the population alive today was ineligible to have had any say on the appointment. That's what I mean when I say that his continued service is undemocratic.
And do you really think we're living in a functional democracy at the moment?
I'm of the opinion that the court should be large enough that not every justice hears every case, and they are randomly assigned. Maybe with some form of limited en banc. I want to limit the ability to shop cases and force them into a favorable environment. Which is exactly how we are getting the Roe decision (so many "let's pass awful laws that will get a legal challenge until we find one that SCOTUS will use to strike down Roe" in the last 15 years).
That's how it is in Norway. A very large SC, and I don't need to know the name or political leanings of a single one of them.
And what if a Justice dies? Do they get to appoint the replacement as well?
Under my proposal yes, the President would appoint a new justice to serve the remaining portion of the deceased's term. It should be much less likely to happen, though, if it's serve for 6 years, than it will for a lifetime appointment. There's no impetus for someone who might be replaced by the next President to literally work themselves to death.
You mean 18, right?
Cause if Justices are only serving 6 year terms, that means you're putting up one every what, 8 months?
And what if a Justice dies? Do they get to appoint the replacement as well?
Under my proposal yes, the President would appoint a new justice to serve the remaining portion of the deceased's term. It should be much less likely to happen, though, if it's serve for 6 years, than it will for a lifetime appointment. There's no impetus for someone who might be replaced by the next President to literally work themselves to death.
You mean 18, right?
Cause if Justices are only serving 6 year terms, that means you're putting up one every what, 8 months?
Posts
...which is why the law has generally been slow to change
When something becomes established law they are loath to change it outside major circumstances. But now we have the worst court in my lifetime playing fuckin Calvinball and doing batshit stuff.
Yeah, but Republicans are planning to ban birth control.
That is going to be hard to swallow, I think.
As opposed to having our legislative or executive branches potentially flip every 2-4 years?
Clarence Thomas was appointed by George Bush Sr in 1991. The fact that he's still serving right now is entirely against democracy, because the people have no voice in his continued service. Having an unelected body deciding the course of our country for the next 30+ years (based on the age of recent appointees) is also undemocratic.
And it's not like the current SC is exactly good for stability, in that they are reversing Roe Vs. Wade, have decided that corporations are people, that money is free speech, that the VRA no long applies because racism is solved, etc.
In my opinion, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors strikes a good balance.
Something being undemocratic by definition does not mean it's undemocratic in the sense of "functionally a democracy"
We can't have national elections for every single government position.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
The only other way I like is that you have it be lifetime appointments, but, you appoint a new one every 2 years (1st year of term and 3rd year of term) and then if that means there are 11 or 12 or 30 people on the court, so be it. If there's a tie, then its a tie, either figure it out between yourselves or wait for the next appointee to break the tie. But, then that creates a 'wish for the bad justices to die of old age quicker' problem.
Probably best to have 18 year terms, new one every other year. If a justice quits or dies, remaining 8 pick the temporary replacement to serve the remainder of the 18 year term.
Also there are plenty of places that are functional democracies that do have long serving judiciaries (along with election winners losing popular votes, unelected / undemocratic / unrepresentative bodies, etc). It's unlikely that the US will just magically be fixed by having shorter judicial terms
Yes those are the branches that are intended to be directly enacting the will of the electorate.
You might as well argue that the Constitution is undemocratic because it was written by some guys centuries ago. SCOTUS has gained an outsized role because of how dysfunctional the other branches have become and how polarized the country has become. If it wanted to the legislature could impeach Clarence Thomas. Or ammend the Constitution. Or pack the court.
Yes, choosing to throw out stare decisis and make increasingly blatant partisan decisions should be giving anyone interested in a stable country pause. I don't know if there is a way to climb down from this ledge now that roughly half the country no longer sees the other half as legitimate fellow citizens that they can coexist with and vice versa but I know it's a bad situation to be in.
You mean the document that only allowed white landowners to vote?
Perish the thought.
If we expand the court to 15 justices, this would be pretty good
By modern standards, the view of the founders on what constituted a democracy is not a democracy, correct.
I find it funny that we're somehow besmirching the good name of democracy by dogging on the people who brought us *checks notes* the Senate and the 3/5ths Compromise.
It probably would actually. The biggest issue right now is that huge swaths of the court has been appointed by only a few presidents. Trump served one term and appointed 3 justices for the most extreme example.
It's not that long-serving judiciaries are inherently bad. It can work. The problem is that the american judiciary is heavily politicized to the point that they are functionally just a super-legislature. Given that, strictly controlling how they get elected so it matches up with who wins elections is a good short-term solution.
Not really. Back then if you managed to make it to adulthood, your odds of living a long life weren't that bad. Especially for anyone rich enough to become a SCOTUS justice. There's plenty of justices from the pre-Civil-War period who served like 30 years.
That's not fixing anything though, it's maybe papering over some cracks. There have been more R presidents than D (post-Roosevelt's 4 terms) after all and even when it's even, all that would do is give effectively clockwork alternating control of the court, that's probably even worse for decision stability too
Just try and imagine someone calling a modern system where only the rich, white men have a vote a democracy.
About as many made it to twenty years as were gone within ten from that period. It's still a far cry from the default expectation is 25+ years. It's not until you get to about the 1950s where virtually every justice is 20+ years.
It would absolutely fix things if you set it up in even a simple non-stupid way. So assuming you go with the like the Federal Reserve Board of Governors suggestion above, you replace a justice every 2 years so they serve fixed 18 year terms. That would make the current court something like:
1 Biden
2 Trump
4 Obama
2 Bush
Conservatives would only have a majority on the court for basically Trump's presidency (when the last Clinton justice gets replaced by a Trump justice). Before that you'd have to go back to early 90s maybe?
And yeah, the whole idea is that you would end up with the court gradually reflecting who is winning elections over the last 18 years. But that's entirely the point. Because all the current system does is the same thing but in a way more lopsided and random fashion. Which is how Trump, a 1 term loser of a president, gets to appoint fully 1/3rd of the entire supreme court.
Decision stability is irrelevant as long as the SCOTUS is a partisan institution full of party-line hacks. As we are literally seeing right now with this court. They don't give a shit about even the precedents they set a month earlier. If you can't stop the courts from being a super-legislature, your best bet is simply to force said super-legislature to reflect voting trends over time.
It wasn't unusual though and the system was not set up with the expectation that these people would be dying like flies after 10 years on the bench.
Conservatives refuse to coexist with everyone else because the idea of people who are not like them living happy, fulfilled lives is infuriating to them, for some reason.
The rest of us can't coexist with conservatives because their ultimate goal is to either convert or eradicate us.
Each side is an existential threat to the other, but both sides are not equally at fault.
If you did that then every president appoints 2 justices, so you can just look at 5 term sequences
Biden gets a D court
Trump gets a R court
Obama gets a D court both terms
Bush II gets a R court both terms
Clinton gets a R court both terms (and from there it's all R until LBJ)
And the only reason Trump got 3 is the Senate's fault, what's to stop republican senators from just holding up every democrat's confirmation still? That doesn't seem like a SC term issue. 2 justices on a single term is still above average but not by that much as you can expect each term to replace on average at least one
As you may have noticed, there's a big difference in terms of WHEN you get those justices, and an extra 1 your way is a bit of a big deal.
I should not have to hope that the supreme court all eats some bad fish in order to preserve democracy. I should be able to say, "If I vote for Biden, things will move my way by two points"
You are just completely ignoring that Trump only served 1 term. 3 justices in Trumps 4 years vs 2 in Obama's 8 years, 2 in GWB's 8 year and 2 in Clinton's 8 years. That's a huge discrepancy there. Which fixed terms address simply and directly.
No, it hasn't. The only prior cases are a justice dying in the lame duck window basically. Garland was nominated in what, March?
There's several ways to avoid the Garland problem, but I think the cleanest is to state that if the appointment for a given Congress has not been filled by the end of that Congress, the current POTUS may continue putting forth candidates to future Congresses until one is approved. That may require an amendment though, as opposed to some form of automatic approval clause that can be executed entirely within the Senate rules (something like any appointment left pending for more than 30 days while Congress is in session is presumed approved - set it up so the clock is only stopped by a recess, which enables POTUS to make a recess appointment anyways)?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Depends on the model. You can just have an uncapped court with every president adding 2 for life, or term limits and figure it out.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
In a capped model, you could simply extend the term of the outgoing justice by two years if the justice to be replaced that session was not the one who died.
There’s a bunch of nominees that lapsed because the senate just did nothing, all with the senate majority being a different party than the president
Lame duck nominees that lapsed:
Crittenden
Micou
Nominated during term and senate just tabled/postponed voting or just did nothing:
Walworth
King
Bradford
Badger
Black
Stanbery (hilariously enough, rather than consider Stanbery’s nom, the Republican congress instead passed a law reducing the size of the court and thus eliminating the seat Stanbery was nominated for!)
Matthews (Hayes original nomination was ignored, but Garfield immediately renominated him and he was confirmed by the new senate- what might have happened with Garland had Clinton beat Trump)
Hornblower
Basically all of these cases are the president and senate being on opposite sides of whether to give black people rights
Under my proposal yes, the President would appoint a new justice to serve the remaining portion of the deceased's term. It should be much less likely to happen, though, if it's serve for 6 years, than it will for a lifetime appointment. There's no impetus for someone who might be replaced by the next President to literally work themselves to death.
I am not suggesting that all officials be elected. Besides, we can't have elections for SCOTUS unless we amend the constitution. Appointments are supposed to represent the will of the people, albeit with one degree of removal from direct elections.
Considering you had to be 18 to vote for George Bush Sr, who was elected in 1988, that means you'd have needed to be born in 1970 or earlier to have had any influence on Clarence Thomas's appointment to SCOTUS. According to some quick googling, approximately 2/3rds of the population alive today was ineligible to have had any say on the appointment. That's what I mean when I say that his continued service is undemocratic.
And do you really think we're living in a functional democracy at the moment?
That's how it is in Norway. A very large SC, and I don't need to know the name or political leanings of a single one of them.
You mean 18, right?
Cause if Justices are only serving 6 year terms, that means you're putting up one every what, 8 months?
3 replaced every 2 years.