SCOTUS Reform

[Belsnickel]

So, I was listening to a lecture on SCOTUS history, specifically the history of judicial review and court reform. It was interesting hearing how much our understanding of the court is misinformed. Even the idea that the SCOTUS is the final word on the Constitution is not that old. Well, it is older, but it didn't become the way of things until the Warren court. That was when liberals decided to agree with conservatives on the idea of judicial supremacy and thus begin their backslide into neoliberal asshattery.

Anyway, one potential reform effort was brought up which I thought was interesting. Many of you know that I have stood against term limits for Justices. I see the court as a political tool and enacting term limits would just further politicize the court to the detriment of the country. The SCOTUS is supposed to be a technocratic institution. However, this idea is politically neutral.

Every two years, a new Justice would be appointed. Doesn't matter the party in power, just every two years. Also, super majority for confirmation because it is a constitutional office and it deserves it. Now, you would also set the number at nine and say that the nine most recent appointees would be the active Justices. This makes a de facto 18 year term. Once they rotate off, they can remain a Justice, they would just act in an advisory role, fill in as needed in case of injury, illness, or recusal, etc. This means that there is a constant rotation of fresh eyes on the cases coming before them.

Anyway, just curious what some of y'all think.

[GMDino]

(09-04-2022, 03:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, I was listening to a lecture on SCOTUS history, specifically the history of judicial review and court reform. It was interesting hearing how much our understanding of the court is misinformed. Even the idea that the SCOTUS is the final word on the Constitution is not that old. Well, it is older, but it didn't become the way of things until the Warren court. That was when liberals decided to agree with conservatives on the idea of judicial supremacy and thus begin their backslide into neoliberal asshattery.

Anyway, one potential reform effort was brought up which I thought was interesting. Many of you know that I have stood against term limits for Justices. I see the court as a political tool and enacting term limits would just further politicize the court to the detriment of the country. The SCOTUS is supposed to be a technocratic institution. However, this idea is politically neutral.

Every two years, a new Justice would be appointed. Doesn't matter the party in power, just every two years. Also, super majority for confirmation because it is a constitutional office and it deserves it. Now, you would also set the number at nine and say that the nine most recent appointees would be the active Justices. This makes a de facto 18 year term. Once they rotate off, they can remain a Justice, they would just act in an advisory role, fill in as needed in case of injury, illness, or recusal, etc. This means that there is a constant rotation of fresh eyes on the cases coming before them.

Anyway, just curious what some of y'all think.

So, for example, Reagan would have appointed four, Bush two, Clinton four, GW Bush would have put four justices on, then Obama four, the Trump two, then Biden two.

Might be better than the current system, might end up with eight justices appointed by one party.

[SunsetBengal]

I think that in our current political system, more time would be spent debating confirmation of Justices than actual legislating being done, especially if you're calling for a supermajority.

[Belsnickel]

(09-04-2022, 06:16 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I think that in our current political system, more time would be spent debating confirmation of Justices than actual legislating being done, especially if you're calling for a supermajority.

As opposed to the plethora of legislation rolling out of Congress right now?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-04-2022, 03:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, I was listening to a lecture on SCOTUS history, specifically the history of judicial review and court reform. It was interesting hearing how much our understanding of the court is misinformed. Even the idea that the SCOTUS is the final word on the Constitution is not that old. Well, it is older, but it didn't become the way of things until the Warren court. That was when liberals decided to agree with conservatives on the idea of judicial supremacy and thus begin their backslide into neoliberal asshattery.

Anyway, one potential reform effort was brought up which I thought was interesting. Many of you know that I have stood against term limits for Justices. I see the court as a political tool and enacting term limits would just further politicize the court to the detriment of the country. The SCOTUS is supposed to be a technocratic institution. However, this idea is politically neutral.

Every two years, a new Justice would be appointed. Doesn't matter the party in power, just every two years. Also, super majority for confirmation because it is a constitutional office and it deserves it. Now, you would also set the number at nine and say that the nine most recent appointees would be the active Justices. This makes a de facto 18 year term. Once they rotate off, they can remain a Justice, they would just act in an advisory role, fill in as needed in case of injury, illness, or recusal, etc. This means that there is a constant rotation of fresh eyes on the cases coming before them.

Anyway, just curious what some of y'all think.

I think the fact that it's being brought up now makes it inherently politically un-neutral. This wasn't brought up after Clinton and Obama had appointed 4 of the last 5 Justices, or brought up when Democrat Presidents appointed 17 of 22 Justices from 1933 and 1968. 

So because it's being brought up now it makes it impossible for it to be politically neutral.

EDIT: That's not to say I am happy with all the decisions the Supreme Court is currently making, and not that I don't think there is probably a better way to do things out there somewhere. Just that it won't ever be viewed as politically neutral right now, and has no chance of happening.

[Belsnickel]

(09-06-2022, 06:00 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I think the fact that it's being brought up now makes it inherently politically un-neutral. This wasn't brought up after Clinton and Obama had appointed 4 of the last 5 Justices, or brought up when Democrat Presidents appointed 17 of 22 Justices from 1933 and 1968. 

So because it's being brought up now it makes it impossible for it to be politically neutral.

EDIT: That's not to say I am happy with all the decisions the Supreme Court is currently making, and not that I don't think there is probably a better way to do things out there somewhere. Just that it won't ever be viewed as politically neutral right now, and has no chance of happening.

By politically neutral it means that it doesn't favor one party over the other. It doesn't matter who holds power, no one party is favored and every election would have the same stakes as far as SCOTUS appointments.

Has term limits not been something conservatives are also in favor of?

[grampahol]

I dunno..There are always going to be people who want to game the system. How about expand the court to include every single eligible voter and make court voting a national holiday and voting on court matters mandatory? I'm up for ruling on SCOTUS issues..

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-06-2022, 06:59 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Has term limits not been something conservatives are also in favor of?

I honestly have no idea what they are in favor for these days.

[*pally*]

(09-07-2022, 03:24 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I honestly have no idea what they are in favor for these days.

Conservatives are in favor of Trump and that's it. They spout a lot of nonsense about "America First" but I have yet to see any of them provide actionable plans surrounding that.  

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-07-2022, 09:27 AM)pally Wrote: Conservatives are in favor of Trump and that's it. They spout a lot of nonsense about "America First" but I have yet to see any of them provide actionable plans surrounding that.  

I still believe that a large part of voters on both sides aren't for any particular candidate. They are just for their party, and if that candidate so happens to be "their" party's choice, they are now for them. Like a football fan who cheers for a player because he is playing for their team rather than because they are a fan of them personally. I think on how there were Bengals fans who suddenly liked James Harrison the second he put on a Bengals uniform, after thinking he was a juiced up cheapshotter playing on a team of scumbag cheaters for a decade.

[KillerGoose]

(09-07-2022, 09:44 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I still believe that a large part of voters on both sides aren't for any particular candidate. They are just for their party, and if that candidate so happens to be "their" party's choice, they are now for them. Like a football fan who cheers for a player because he is playing for their team rather than because they are a fan of them personally. I think on how there were Bengals fans who suddenly liked James Harrison the second he put on a Bengals uniform, after thinking he was a juiced up cheapshotter playing on a team of scumbag cheaters for a decade.

Yes, this has been my experience as well. I've mentioned this before, but living in Oklahoma I have conversed with people who have the mentality of "I would vote for anyone as long as they aren't a goddamned Democrat." My MIL is this way, as much as I love her. She votes straight ticket Republican, doesn't care what they stand for or what they've done. As long as they aren't a Democrat. 

[masonbengals fan]

(09-07-2022, 10:08 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: Yes, this has been my experience as well. I've mentioned this before, but living in Oklahoma I have conversed with people who have the mentality of "I would vote for anyone as long as they aren't a goddamned Democrat." My MIL is this way, as much as I love her. She votes straight ticket Republican, doesn't care what they stand for or what they've done. As long as they aren't a Democrat. 

I believe both parties are full of people with that exact same mindset. 

[KillerGoose]

(09-07-2022, 10:49 AM)masonbengals fan Wrote: I believe both parties are full of people with that exact same mindset. 

Absolutely. I know a few people on the other side who have not explicitly stated it. However, I feel pretty confident that they wouldn't vote Republican, no matter what it meant. In all honesty, I am not going to say I would never vote red, but I would have to see a change in direction in social policies in order to do so. I look at Republican candidates and am on board with some of their stances but it is always the social stances that kill me off. Abortion, gay marriage, healthcare reform, legal marijuana etc. 

I am not opposed to voting red because they are red, I just don't find candidates I align with. 

[NATI BENGALS]

I have a problem with judges in general. Doesn't seem like being judge for life should be a real thing. Who are you to judge? Why does somebody get to do that? As soon as politics comes in to it I dislike it even more.

Having said that. Yea. Anything that eliminates supreme judge of everything for life is cool with me.

[Stewy]

(09-07-2022, 10:08 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: Yes, this has been my experience as well. I've mentioned this before, but living in Oklahoma I have conversed with people who have the mentality of "I would vote for anyone as long as they aren't a goddamned Democrat." My MIL is this way, as much as I love her. She votes straight ticket Republican, doesn't care what they stand for or what they've done. As long as they aren't a Democrat. 

(09-07-2022, 10:49 AM)masonbengals fan Wrote: I believe both parties are full of people with that exact same mindset. 

Absolutely.  Ignorance and stupidity aren't the sole mindset of just one party, but of a particular demographic of people who are too lazy to actually try and understand the issues that affect them and the person most likely to make their life better, so they listen to political propaganda and always vote one way.  It's easier and it's never been easier to be politically ignorant and brainwashed than it is in todays society.  But again, it's always been this way on both sides.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-01-2023, 01:52 PM)Stewy Wrote: Absolutely.  Ignorance and stupidity aren't the sole mindset of just one party, but of a particular demographic of people who are too lazy to actually try and understand the issues that affect them and the person most likely to make their life better, so they listen to political propaganda and always vote one way.  It's easier and it's never been easier to be politically ignorant and brainwashed than it is in todays society.  But again, it's always been this way on both sides.

Couldn't agree more.  But be careful, the "both sides do it" police are likely to pay you a long winded visit.

[Stewy]

(07-01-2023, 01:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Couldn't agree more.  But be careful, the "both sides do it" police are likely to pay you a long winded visit.

Don't care.  I'm not wrong.   I grew up in politics in southern ohio (Appalachia).  I've ben out there knocking on doors in the fall before elections, every weekend for months, and I can attest that ignorance and laziness has no political affiliation.

[KillerGoose]

(07-01-2023, 01:52 PM)Stewy Wrote: Absolutely.  Ignorance and stupidity aren't the sole mindset of just one party, but of a particular demographic of people who are too lazy to actually try and understand the issues that affect them and the person most likely to make their life better, so they listen to political propaganda and always vote one way.  It's easier and it's never been easier to be politically ignorant and brainwashed than it is in todays society.  But again, it's always been this way on both sides.

You're absolutely correct, I wasn't meaning to say it only occurs with Conservatives, if that was the way my post came off. I just tend to be around a lot more Republicans than I do Democrats here. It has very much become a team mindset and we have a lot of ideologues on each side that may not actually believe in what they are supporting, but support it because it the position of their "team". 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-01-2023, 02:00 PM)Stewy Wrote: Don't care.  I'm not wrong.   I grew up in politics in southern ohio (Appalachia).  I've ben out there knocking on doors in the fall before elections, every weekend for months, and I can attest that ignorance and laziness has no political affiliation.

(07-01-2023, 02:30 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: You're absolutely correct, I wasn't meaning to say it only occurs with Conservatives, if that was the way my post came off. I just tend to be around a lot more Republicans than I do Democrats here. It has very much become a team mindset and we have a lot of ideologues on each side that may not actually believe in what they are supporting, but support it because it the position of their "team". 

At the risk of being viscously attacked, I doubt this experience changes from region to region, only the party in question.  I had a friend absolutely lose it on me because I stated that Tucker Carlson is a talented broadcaster.  Love or hate him, his talent is plain to see.  It's like saying Ray Lewis was a horrible LB'er because he helped murder someone.  Both of their talent is undeniable, unless you're illogical.

[SunsetBengal]

(07-01-2023, 01:09 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well, Biden the Progressive, extreme leftist (as some on this board have called him) said it.

11 year old girl at Trump rally says she loves Trump. Asked why, she says, “He only tells the truth.” pic.twitter.com/nloav2Tme6

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) July 1, 2023

 

What exactly does this post have to do with Supreme Court reform that merited bumping a thread that was dormant for nearly a year?