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.
- 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.
- 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
A court with more judges would water down the influence of any extremists.
But yes, packing the court alone doesn't guaruntee the court can't be captured again. What Elie Mystal suggested way back when the court majority had flipped was basically two things that should happen:
expand the court by alot, maybe somewhere within 20-30, similar to the 9th circuit that's just below the Supreme Court. This helps dilute the power of individual crazies like Alito and then
Rotate judges out routinely to other federal positions. This allows for their life-time appointment still, but ensures also that, due to the high number of justices, every administration is getting an opportunity to appoint a few judges every time. That revolving door means it wpuld require multiple far-right administrations to pin the court down like it is now.
There's no reason the court needs to be nine justices, we've had more and less throughout our history as a nation, and there's no reason that the courts power needs to be concentrated into the hands of so few individuals, since the purpose of the court is suppose to be a moderating force of legal scholars, not an explicitly partisan body.
None of this addresses my point. There isn’t the political power to do it.
And even if there was, the court has already essentially overturned precedent as a concept. That can’t just be rolled back without completely reworking the court, which…see my first point…
That's the entire problem, full stop. This wouldn't even have gotten to SCOTUS if Congress would have held POTUS accountable via impeachment. The reason Congress didn't is partially due to political pressure from voters but mostly because the HoR is far too small to adequately represent 300,000,000 people.
Yes, it depends up getting people out to vote, especially in mid-terms.
Precedent is literally just a tradition that's agreed upon, there's nothing binding judges to adhere to it, which is why the supreme court was so easily able to ignore it.
So in that sense it's a double-edged sword, it's just as easy for judges to rule by precedent as it is for them to not, it's always been this way.