SCOTUS Watch

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
Drazzil
Posts: 4723
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:54 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Drazzil »

Smoove_B wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 1:32 pmJunta
Or a final acknowledgement that the supreme court as it is incompatible with running a democratic country.

If Biden were to wake up tomorrow, and say "Hey, the Supreme Court and Congress can go spin, I'm just going to do the stuff I need to, assuming that he had the sec def on side... I think the American people would just shrug and go about their business. I think if he managed to make real systemic change to how this country works for the better, he, or his successor would then be able to just carry on. It might even get the average American to really get involved in the political process and push for reform in the house and SC.

Honestly. I want one of the following:

1. A national divorce

or

2. Some sort of reshaping of the political system we have now to include a more powerful executive until we can put something better in place.

I don't believe in Democracy anymore. It failed.
Daehawk wrote:Thats Drazzil's chair damnit.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Drazzil wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 2:21 pm
Smoove_B wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 1:32 pmJunta
Or a final acknowledgement that the supreme court as it is incompatible with running a democratic country.

If Biden were to wake up tomorrow, and say "Hey, the Supreme Court and Congress can go spin, I'm just going to do the stuff I need to, assuming that he had the sec def on side... I think the American people would just shrug and go about their business. I think if he managed to make real systemic change to how this country works for the better, he, or his successor would then be able to just carry on. It might even get the average American to really get involved in the political process and push for reform in the house and SC.

Honestly. I want one of the following:

1. A national divorce

or

2. Some sort of reshaping of the political system we have now to include a more powerful executive until we can put something better in place.

I don't believe in Democracy anymore. It failed.

That's all very GOP of you.

If you can't beat 'em, be 'em.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Smoove_B »

In -theory- states could just decide to not follow the ruling. Like NY (instead of crafting new laws on guns) could have just said no, we're still not going to issue carry permits for NY residents. Or random purple state could say no, we're still going to provide Plan B or medications (certain arthritis medications are now in the crossfire) that can induce abortions but aren't primarily used as such.

Instead there's an unwillingness to deal with the consequences of those decisions, and some of them are likely financial (fear of lawsuits), which is 100% what I'd expect for corporations to be doing.

Some states have already had state-level prosecutors saying they won't enforce anti-abortion laws that target women for punishment.

I don't disagree with you (broadly) - we can collectively decide their ruling is nonsense and do what the majority of people want (in a state). The problem is that we've then acknowledged that it's acceptable to ignore the rule of law. And perhaps it is justified in situations where half the population loses their rights with the stroke of a pen, but how we actually address it? I honestly don't know.

It feels like this would ultimately spiral into violence - where one group is saying they want something while the other is saying they don't. If courts and police can't resolve the differences in opinion, what's left?

I have no doubts the christofascists are ready for violence to get what they want. I'm not sure I believe that people pushing for women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, gun restrictions, etc... are largely equally as motivated for violence as their political/philosophical counterparts.

At that point the question (for me) is how does the side that isn't willing to engage in violence address the side that is? I don't have an answer.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
Drazzil
Posts: 4723
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:54 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Drazzil »

LawBeefaroni wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 2:30 pm
Drazzil wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 2:21 pm
Smoove_B wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 1:32 pmJunta
Or a final acknowledgement that the supreme court as it is incompatible with running a democratic country.

If Biden were to wake up tomorrow, and say "Hey, the Supreme Court and Congress can go spin, I'm just going to do the stuff I need to, assuming that he had the sec def on side... I think the American people would just shrug and go about their business. I think if he managed to make real systemic change to how this country works for the better, he, or his successor would then be able to just carry on. It might even get the average American to really get involved in the political process and push for reform in the house and SC.

Honestly. I want one of the following:

1. A national divorce

or

2. Some sort of reshaping of the political system we have now to include a more powerful executive until we can put something better in place.

I don't believe in Democracy anymore. It failed.

That's all very GOP of you.

If you can't beat 'em, be 'em.
My point is, over 50 years the R's have managed to degrade the institutions to the point where if we don't walk into the door they just kicked down, the fascists will. There is NO rebuilding the door. You're either inside, or you're outside.
Daehawk wrote:Thats Drazzil's chair damnit.
Drazzil
Posts: 4723
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:54 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Drazzil »

Smoove_B wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 2:40 pm In -theory- states could just decide to not follow the ruling. Like NY (instead of crafting new laws on guns) could have just said no, we're still not going to issue carry permits for NY residents. Or random purple state could say no, we're still going to provide Plan B or medications (certain arthritis medications are now in the crossfire) that can induce abortions but aren't primarily used as such.

Instead there's an unwillingness to deal with the consequences of those decisions, and some of them are likely financial (fear of lawsuits), which is 100% what I'd expect for corporations to be doing.

Some states have already had state-level prosecutors saying they won't enforce anti-abortion laws that target women for punishment.

I don't disagree with you (broadly) - we can collectively decide their ruling is nonsense and do what the majority of people want (in a state). The problem is that we've then acknowledged that it's acceptable to ignore the rule of law. And perhaps it is justified in situations where half the population loses their rights with the stroke of a pen, but how we actually address it? I honestly don't know.

It feels like this would ultimately spiral into violence - where one group is saying they want something while the other is saying they don't. If courts and police can't resolve the differences in opinion, what's left?

I have no doubts the christofascists are ready for violence to get what they want. I'm not sure I believe that people pushing for women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, gun restrictions, etc... are largely equally as motivated for violence as their political/philosophical counterparts.

At that point the question (for me) is how does the side that isn't willing to engage in violence address the side that is? I don't have an answer.
I do. Engage in honest conversation, and try to settle things through the political process and protest until such time as the state or state backed actors uses violence to try and crush dissent. This time, instead of scattering like roaches when someone turns the lights on, and bemoaning our fate on social media and sending each other memes, we use self defense. We refuse to be dispersed. If they want to carry it further then... well. There's a lot more of us then them, and even passive sabotage works wonders.

My guess is that our side will continue to be stomped on till we organize and fight back. The right has an advantage in guns and numbers and willingness to do violence... for now. This will not always be true. The left has guns too. The weapons gap is closing quickly. It's a joy to watch.

There will be a ton of ways to support various movements. Not every member of the armed forces is a front lines fighter. I suspect that when the inevitable resistance/revolution movement rises a lot of the non violent types will be in support roles for those who are engaging with the enemy actively.

I have a suspicion that when you see people start to fight back and organize it will be like a dam breaking, It'll be everywhere. People are fed up, but most leftists are followers, as soon as that first shot is fired though... boy howdy.
Daehawk wrote:Thats Drazzil's chair damnit.
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43491
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Blackhawk »

Smoove_B wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 2:40 pm I have no doubts the christofascists are ready for violence to get what they want. I'm not sure I believe that people pushing for women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, gun restrictions, etc... are largely equally as motivated for violence as their political/philosophical counterparts.

At that point the question (for me) is how does the side that isn't willing to engage in violence address the side that is? I don't have an answer.
If they come out ahead in 2022 (and even more so in 2024), the GOP will be hoping for violent resistance. They would love to have the excuse to legislate in response - imagine them salivating at branding Planned Parenthood as a criminal organization, or adding extreme controls to Facebook for 'aiding in terrorism.' And don't forget the impact that ANTIFA had on the last election cycle - and organization that didn't even exist. Imagine what they could do with a real bogeyman!
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
Drazzil
Posts: 4723
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:54 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Drazzil »

Smoove_B wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 2:40 pm In -theory- states could just decide to not follow the ruling. Like NY (instead of crafting new laws on guns) could have just said no, we're still not going to issue carry permits for NY residents. Or random purple state could say no, we're still going to provide Plan B or medications (certain arthritis medications are now in the crossfire) that can induce abortions but aren't primarily used as such.

Instead there's an unwillingness to deal with the consequences of those decisions, and some of them are likely financial (fear of lawsuits), which is 100% what I'd expect for corporations to be doing.

Some states have already had state-level prosecutors saying they won't enforce anti-abortion laws that target women for punishment.

I don't disagree with you (broadly) - we can collectively decide their ruling is nonsense and do what the majority of people want (in a state). The problem is that we've then acknowledged that it's acceptable to ignore the rule of law. And perhaps it is justified in situations where half the population loses their rights with the stroke of a pen, but how we actually address it? I honestly don't know.

It feels like this would ultimately spiral into violence - where one group is saying they want something while the other is saying they don't. If courts and police can't resolve the differences in opinion, what's left?

I have no doubts the christofascists are ready for violence to get what they want. I'm not sure I believe that people pushing for women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, gun restrictions, etc... are largely equally as motivated for violence as their political/philosophical counterparts.

At that point the question (for me) is how does the side that isn't willing to engage in violence address the side that is? I don't have an answer.
Also, RE: The other side is already not following the laws and norms. It's our side that doesn't get the memo. As long as we continue to sheepishly cling to what little we have left, the right will continue to steal it.
Daehawk wrote:Thats Drazzil's chair damnit.
User avatar
Alefroth
Posts: 8486
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Alefroth »

Can you be specific? Exactly what actions does the administration take to do that? Don't say RICO.
User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 30125
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by YellowKing »

We're not going to fix in a year what Republicans have spent the last four decades breaking.
Drazzil
Posts: 4723
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:54 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Drazzil »

YellowKing wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 4:39 pm We're not going to fix in a year what Republicans have spent the last four decades breaking.
We absolutely could if our leaders ELECTED BY US laid out a game plan, got organized and did it. Biden could rain down so much shit on the GOP just by acting within the law and using every tool at his disposal. If you then discuss what he could do by suspending, or ignoring some of the bullshit the other side sprang on him, well...
Daehawk wrote:Thats Drazzil's chair damnit.
Drazzil
Posts: 4723
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:54 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Drazzil »

Alefroth wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 4:35 pm Can you be specific? Exactly what actions does the administration take to do that? Don't say RICO.
Could you be more specific? Exactly what actions can we take to save ourselves? Don't say voting organizing or peaceful protest.
Daehawk wrote:Thats Drazzil's chair damnit.
Drazzil
Posts: 4723
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:54 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Drazzil »

YellowKing wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 4:39 pm We're not going to fix in a year what Republicans have spent the last four decades breaking.
We don't have four decades to set it right. What now?
Daehawk wrote:Thats Drazzil's chair damnit.
Drazzil
Posts: 4723
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:54 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Drazzil »

Daehawk wrote:Thats Drazzil's chair damnit.
User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 30125
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by YellowKing »

Drazzil wrote:We don't have four decades to set it right. What now?
We suffer under fascist authoritarian rule for at least the next 6 years, and probably longer. I don't know that there is an answer, because I think we're screwed. I literally think it's going to take decades to set it right, and in the meantime we're in for a rough ride.
Drazzil
Posts: 4723
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:54 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Drazzil »

YellowKing wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 9:08 pm
Drazzil wrote:We don't have four decades to set it right. What now?
We suffer under fascist authoritarian rule for at least the next 6 years, and probably longer. I don't know that there is an answer, because I think we're screwed. I literally think it's going to take decades to set it right, and in the meantime we're in for a rough ride.
We don't have decades. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a fool. We're all in this trap like an animal, and the animal is starved and tired hopeless and isn't even fighting back. I suppose the only realistic thing would be to plan an exit. While we still can, to where ever you figure you can get to and won't immediately collapse when America does.

The house is now an inferno, and its up to us individually to escape, regroup and fight from the outside. Like Alaska and Canada did when Gilead took over.
Daehawk wrote:Thats Drazzil's chair damnit.
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43491
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Blackhawk »

Don't worry, climate change will tear it all down before that.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 16434
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Zarathud »

Drazzil, how about you get that mental health care before we read about your break in the newspapers? You’re making Rip seem sensible.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867
“It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28906
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Holman »

Drazzil wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 4:54 pm
Alefroth wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 4:35 pm Can you be specific? Exactly what actions does the administration take to do that? Don't say RICO.
Could you be more specific? Exactly what actions can we take to save ourselves? Don't say voting organizing or peaceful protest.
Why not?

Voting, organizing, and peaceful protest have had the greatest impact in changing this country.

They're hard work, of course. They take time, effort, and cooperation. But you've indicated before that you can't commit to that.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Kraken »

Holman wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 9:59 pm
Drazzil wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 4:54 pm
Alefroth wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 4:35 pm Can you be specific? Exactly what actions does the administration take to do that? Don't say RICO.
Could you be more specific? Exactly what actions can we take to save ourselves? Don't say voting organizing or peaceful protest.
Why not?

Voting, organizing, and peaceful protest have had the greatest impact in changing this country.

They're hard work, of course. They take time, effort, and cooperation. But you've indicated before that you can't commit to that.
If saving democracy is your objective, you need to do it through democratic means. Suspending it kinda defeats your purpose. Roman emperors throughout centuries promised to restore the republic as soon as conditions were right.

That said, we do need to push the edges of the possible.
User avatar
waitingtoconnect
Posts: 960
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 5:56 am

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by waitingtoconnect »

Drazzil wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 10:22 pm
YellowKing wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 9:08 pm
Drazzil wrote:We don't have four decades to set it right. What now?
We suffer under fascist authoritarian rule for at least the next 6 years, and probably longer. I don't know that there is an answer, because I think we're screwed. I literally think it's going to take decades to set it right, and in the meantime we're in for a rough ride.
We don't have decades. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a fool. We're all in this trap like an animal, and the animal is starved and tired hopeless and isn't even fighting back. I suppose the only realistic thing would be to plan an exit. While we still can, to where ever you figure you can get to and won't immediately collapse when America does.

The house is now an inferno, and its up to us individually to escape, regroup and fight from the outside. Like Alaska and Canada did when Gilead took over.
A fascist US is more likely to look like the US we saw in the Purge movies or like the UK in V for Vendetta than that shown in Gilead. One party rule not two party rule with a long slow decline akin to Putins Russia. Inevitably like with Russia the federal Republic would become more of a centrally managed affair under " El Presidentes" direct control.

You would also likely see similarly weird choices like invading Mexico to stop immigrants and Canada to give everyone the right to own a gun and manifest destiny and all that.

The people who have money want to keep their money and make more of it. They are highly unlikely to allow a scenario that risks their money and prevents them touring blue states with their cover bands. Like the Winklevoss twins.
User avatar
waitingtoconnect
Posts: 960
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 5:56 am

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by waitingtoconnect »

Drazzil wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 2:21 pm
Smoove_B wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 1:32 pmJunta
Or a final acknowledgement that the supreme court as it is incompatible with running a democratic country.


I don't believe in Democracy anymore. It failed.
The supreme court should change so a body of legal scholars and judges pick three or four nominees for Congress to decide. And appointments should be for 10 years maximum not for life. As back when it was a lifetime appointment 10 years was al the judges had left.

Democracy has not failed. I am sad you feel that way. Each system is like a house and needs to be maintained.
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 51302
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by hepcat »

Drazzil wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 10:22 pm
The house is now an inferno, and its up to us individually to escape, regroup and fight from the outside. Like Alaska and Canada did when Gilead took over.
You probably shouldn’t have brought a gas can and matches to the house in 2016.
Covfefe!
Drazzil
Posts: 4723
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:54 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Drazzil »

hepcat wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 7:47 am
Drazzil wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 10:22 pm
The house is now an inferno, and its up to us individually to escape, regroup and fight from the outside. Like Alaska and Canada did when Gilead took over.
You probably shouldn’t have brought a gas can and matches to the house in 2016.
You're just doing this to annoy me, we both know whoever I voted for in 16 made no difference. You're *really* angry at all the other people who decided to gamble on Trump. Besides the house was already on fire long before that. You know that roo.
Daehawk wrote:Thats Drazzil's chair damnit.
User avatar
ImLawBoy
Forum Admin
Posts: 14950
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by ImLawBoy »

waitingtoconnect wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 3:05 am The supreme court should change so a body of legal scholars and judges pick three or four nominees for Congress to decide. And appointments should be for 10 years maximum not for life. As back when it was a lifetime appointment 10 years was al the judges had left.
Lifetime appointments are certainly not without issue, but can you imagine if the SCOTUS were a stepping stone to someone's next job in the private sector?
That's my purse! I don't know you!
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 51302
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by hepcat »

Drazzil wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:00 am
hepcat wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 7:47 am
Drazzil wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 10:22 pm
The house is now an inferno, and its up to us individually to escape, regroup and fight from the outside. Like Alaska and Canada did when Gilead took over.
You probably shouldn’t have brought a gas can and matches to the house in 2016.
You're just doing this to annoy me, we both know whoever I voted for in 16 made no difference. You're *really* angry at all the other people who decided to gamble on Trump. Besides the house was already on fire long before that. You know that roo.
I'm doing this to remind everyone that your advice should always be viewed as coming from someone who voted to help get us where we are today. If the truth annoys you, that's not my fault.
Covfefe!
User avatar
waitingtoconnect
Posts: 960
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 5:56 am

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by waitingtoconnect »

That is a good point, but the reality is they could resign and take up those positions now.
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28906
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Holman »

ImLawBoy wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:10 am
waitingtoconnect wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 3:05 am The supreme court should change so a body of legal scholars and judges pick three or four nominees for Congress to decide. And appointments should be for 10 years maximum not for life. As back when it was a lifetime appointment 10 years was al the judges had left.
Lifetime appointments are certainly not without issue, but can you imagine if the SCOTUS were a stepping stone to someone's next job in the private sector?
Not trying to be snarky, but can you imagine if a lifetime Justice were married to someone in a position to influence politics and positions and contracts in the private sector?
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
ImLawBoy
Forum Admin
Posts: 14950
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by ImLawBoy »

waitingtoconnect wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 7:47 pm That is a good point, but the reality is they could resign and take up those positions now.
Yes, but they don't, which indicates the risk is much, much greater in a scenario where they are forced to leave after their term ends.
Holman wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 7:50 pm
ImLawBoy wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:10 am
waitingtoconnect wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 3:05 am The supreme court should change so a body of legal scholars and judges pick three or four nominees for Congress to decide. And appointments should be for 10 years maximum not for life. As back when it was a lifetime appointment 10 years was al the judges had left.
Lifetime appointments are certainly not without issue, but can you imagine if the SCOTUS were a stepping stone to someone's next job in the private sector?
Not trying to be snarky, but can you imagine if a lifetime Justice were married to someone in a position to influence politics and positions and contracts in the private sector?
Can you imagine if a term-limited Justice were married to someone in a position to influence politics and positions and contracts in the private sector while they were also working on lining up their post term career in the private sector?

Again, I'm not arguing that lifetime tenure for justices is ideal. I'm simply saying that term limiting justices isn't the panacea that many make it out to be and is likely to make some elements significantly worse than today's status quo.
That's my purse! I don't know you!
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

IIRC one of the more interesting proposals was to enlarge the court but also rotate the court. The personal interest angle is real so ideally both aspects would have to be designed to maximize dilution of each individual's actual power. It obviously wouldn't be perfect but it'd be one way to limit the damage and potentially de-politicize the nomination process.
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Kraken »

ImLawBoy wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 9:48 am
waitingtoconnect wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 7:47 pm That is a good point, but the reality is they could resign and take up those positions now.
Yes, but they don't, which indicates the risk is much, much greater in a scenario where they are forced to leave after their term ends.
Holman wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 7:50 pm
ImLawBoy wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:10 am
waitingtoconnect wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 3:05 am The supreme court should change so a body of legal scholars and judges pick three or four nominees for Congress to decide. And appointments should be for 10 years maximum not for life. As back when it was a lifetime appointment 10 years was al the judges had left.
Lifetime appointments are certainly not without issue, but can you imagine if the SCOTUS were a stepping stone to someone's next job in the private sector?
Not trying to be snarky, but can you imagine if a lifetime Justice were married to someone in a position to influence politics and positions and contracts in the private sector?
Can you imagine if a term-limited Justice were married to someone in a position to influence politics and positions and contracts in the private sector while they were also working on lining up their post term career in the private sector?

Again, I'm not arguing that lifetime tenure for justices is ideal. I'm simply saying that term limiting justices isn't the panacea that many make it out to be and is likely to make some elements significantly worse than today's status quo.
Instead of term limits, how about a mandatory retirement age? That would make openings predictable, and retired justices would be unlikely to want private sector careers after age 75 (or 72 or whatever).
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

Kraken wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 9:54 amInstead of term limits, how about a mandatory retirement age? That would make openings predictable, and retired justices would be unlikely to want private sector careers after age 75 (or 72 or whatever).
It wouldn't solve the immediate issue. And even then you're still looking at someone on the court for 30+ years.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by LawBeefaroni »

When the Court is politicized and weaponozed there isn't really an operational solution. If judges don't have integrity and objectivity the Court is broken, be it term limited or age limited or case lottery or whatever.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

Even I'm sort of surprised. If this is true, this shows an incredible lack of judgement.

User avatar
Carpet_pissr
Posts: 19979
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: Columbia, SC

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Carpet_pissr »

All bets are off, Pandora's Box is open, the jackals are loosed.

I don't think anything would surprise me at this point, except any kind of integrity.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

Carpet_pissr wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 1:55 pm All bets are off, Pandora's Box is open, the jackals are loosed.

I don't think anything would surprise me at this point, except any kind of integrity.
That is sort of what I meant. I have a super low bar about belief in the integrity of these robed tyrants. Even this was below it. It's unacceptable. In my mind, absolutely impeachable. Not that it'd happen but these judges have ZERO integrity and legitimacy in my mind. If states in particular were to start ignoring them on religious rulings it'd be almost hard to fault them.
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Unagi »

Not almost, it would be very much hard to blame them.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

Unfortunately SCOTUS doesn't have a code of ethics and lobbying the justices is totally legal.

User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by LawBeefaroni »

That's how you play the long game.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Carpet_pissr
Posts: 19979
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: Columbia, SC

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Carpet_pissr »

Is that illegal?
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Carpet_pissr wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 9:15 am Is that illegal?
No. It's highly unethical and erodes any confidence in the court but it's not illegal.



If it were illegal, any case would probably get appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
Post Reply