politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The supreme court is on his side
And that's why they need to be abolished. It was obviously a bad idea, let's try something else.
Im curious what the alternative to an ultimate judicial authority might look like?
Here's what I think. There should be 11 of them, and on an 11 year cycle they should be directly elected by the people 1 per year, 11 year term, 1 term limit. They should be selected from a pool that is made up of high level judges in the country, and the members of that pool who decide to run for the position need to pass some sort of test by an independent board of constitutional scholars.
As the Supreme Court makes rulings, rulings that allow or affirm a right or action should be set in stone and no longer challengeable unless the entire panel of 11 judges unanimously decide that the issue needs to be reheard.
Something like this anyway, I'm sure there is more to consider but this is the general idea that I think would work.
That sounds interesting, especially your view on rulings being unchallengeable. Full disclosure im Canadian so our system has differences.
To me, the root cause of that tension really stems from what I view as an inappropriate use of the judicial as law writers. It's politically convenient for elected officials to use the cover of some rulings to allow ambiguity to persist in the law.
I think the ultimate cause of this in the US system is the general consensus (which by my read is not the intention of the law) that your constitution is immutable. Rulings on constitutionality are especially important because your constitution is amended so infrequently.
But with any rulings, I think that they should actually be MORE ephemeral, not less, based on the amount of dissent between judges. If a ruling is 5-4, there is a strong argument that the underlying law is unclear. This type of split I think is better resolved by the demand that legislators update or amend the law to add clarity. Judges, as interpreters of the law, are useful in function as a type of "quality check". A 5-4 ruling, I would argue, amounts to the judicial writing law in the absence of clarity.
A 9-0 ruling? Law is fine. 8-1, probably still pretty good.
Even on a 9-0, there is nothing STOPPING the legislative branch from re-writing law. It is thiers to write and rewrite.
I just think tight splits should trigger some mechanism which demands a law-based resolution to clear up the underlying ambiguity within a specified time frame.
I get why legislators were happy to avoid touching law about things like abortion and let SC rulings be thier cover... they're elected. It is convenient and safe. But they're not really doing thier jobs.
Anyhow, that's my 0.02
The court should be made up of a rotating panel of judges, made up of judges from the district courts, or lower courts in general, so the judges themselves are also subject to the court’s rulings, rather than a few permanent power-hungry narcissists imperiously sitting above us all with no accountability.
Each judge must be part of the Supreme Court for a year or two at a time, call it a “detail,” then they go back to their normal job as a judge.
That actually seems pretty practical.
Ok, yeah, this sounds reasonable to me.
This is still describing an ultimate judicial authority (aka, a "Supreme court") just one with an alternative formulation of the conditions for which one serves on the court.
Original guy seemed to imply just getting rid of it as a concept entirely.
Something more horizontal.
Jury duty, but for the judges too?
I hope not, I'm pretty convinced that jury duty is a bad idea because average citizens are very easily misled by legal professionals.