Yesterday, I wrote about the Supreme Court’s blow to labor in the Glacier Northwest v. Teamsters decision. As this is yet another instance of the nine unelected justices eroding Americans’ rights, I’m increasingly bullish on the need to profoundly change the role the Court plays in our political system.
There are many proposed solutions floating around, such as expanding the Court, implementing a code of ethics, returning it to its original iteration sans judicial review, or even abolishing it altogether.
What do you think should be done about the Supreme Court? Do you think it should be altered, disempowered, or abolished? Or, do you think less drastic changes are needed?
Personally, I think the Supreme Court is the biggest obstacle to the United States becoming a true democracy. The Justices are unelected, politically-appointed, and are subject to no oversight by any of the other branches. They are functionally unimpeachable, all powerful rulers of our society, and they almost always come from the upper class.
Ideally, I would like to see the Supreme Court returned to its original role of settling disputes between states, ambassadors, and other niche areas. This would mean stripping them of the self-appointed power of judicial review, by which they determine if the actions of democratically elected Presidents and legislators are "unconstitutional."
Unfortunately, it is unlikely we get a recourse that drastic from the Democratic party. I'll take any additional oversight or disempowering of the Court, though I remain steadfast that drastic change is necessary.
I agree. Personally, I'll take any reform that even dampens the massive onslaught on labor, reproductive, and other rights. But we shouldn't confuse that for the end goal, which is creating a true and equal democracy.
The "for life" terms are utterly ridiculous. It was one thing when people only lived until their 30s, but to have 90-year-olds appointed half a century ago making decisions is no way for a serious government to run.
There's an interesting interpretation of the Constitution that says it requires judges to serve "on the Judiciary for life," not the SC. Under that lens, Justices could be limited to 6 years on the Supreme Court before serving the rest on a lower court.
I agree with above, plus ethics monitoring with enforceable consequences and stronger pre-screening of conflicts of interest. Money, once again I'm holding you responsible for corrupting a fragile, deeply broken system.
We really can't ignore the role money plays in all of this. Clarence Thomas's wife, Ginni, has received multiple "donations" from parties bringing their cases before her husband.
Personally, I think the Supreme Court is the biggest obstacle to the United States becoming a true democracy. The Justices are unelected, politically-appointed, and are subject to no oversight by any of the other branches. They are functionally unimpeachable, all powerful rulers of our society, and they almost always come from the upper class.
Ideally, I would like to see the Supreme Court returned to its original role of settling disputes between states, ambassadors, and other niche areas. This would mean stripping them of the self-appointed power of judicial review, by which they determine if the actions of democratically elected Presidents and legislators are "unconstitutional."
Unfortunately, it is unlikely we get a recourse that drastic from the Democratic party. I'll take any additional oversight or disempowering of the Court, though I remain steadfast that drastic change is necessary.
Expanding the court seems like the least we can do, but even that... you can't change the system with the system sadly
I agree. Personally, I'll take any reform that even dampens the massive onslaught on labor, reproductive, and other rights. But we shouldn't confuse that for the end goal, which is creating a true and equal democracy.
I would like to see the court expanded, and a limit on terms (6 years? 12?).
The "for life" terms are utterly ridiculous. It was one thing when people only lived until their 30s, but to have 90-year-olds appointed half a century ago making decisions is no way for a serious government to run.
There's an interesting interpretation of the Constitution that says it requires judges to serve "on the Judiciary for life," not the SC. Under that lens, Justices could be limited to 6 years on the Supreme Court before serving the rest on a lower court.
I agree with above, plus ethics monitoring with enforceable consequences and stronger pre-screening of conflicts of interest. Money, once again I'm holding you responsible for corrupting a fragile, deeply broken system.
We really can't ignore the role money plays in all of this. Clarence Thomas's wife, Ginni, has received multiple "donations" from parties bringing their cases before her husband.