312
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2023
312 points (99.1% liked)
News
23305 readers
3691 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Pack the court.
Balance the court. It's already been packed by McConnell starting in Obama's second term. It should just be tied to the number of federal appellate courts.
Honest suggestion: let's eliminate the court's fixed size requirement, and simply add a permanent justice in the third year of every presidential term.
If the total number of justices falls below 7 at any time during a president's term, the president may make one additional permanent appointment per term. Permanent appointments must be confirmed by the senate.
After making that second permanent appointment, the president may make temporary appointments to bring the total to 7. For these temporary appointments, the president may elevate any previously confirmed circuit court judge directly to the supreme court without additional confirmation. Any other nominee must receive Senate confirmation.
Any temporary appointment expires in the third year of the following presidential term.
This is great. Let’s fucking goooooo
Bad precedent, but I get the idea.
I just researched this and that's not true. FDR tried to get 13 justices on the court, but ultimately failed.
From what I can tell he literally didn't.
It's starting to look like we might need a few less justices, actually.
More
I think it would be better if the horribly corrupt judges weren't part of the SC, but that's just me.
Well obviously, but we need 13, imo.
I like to see 50. No more 5-4 decisions. Conservative views might get the attention they deserve. If it wasn't possible to so blatantly stack the court with a few votes, they wouldn't have overturned 250 years plus of gun control laws.
Make no mistake, these justices are extremist. The people who think the shit they think in law school are ostracized and called out as immature weirdos.
Every president gets 4 appointments per term. No vacated seats are ever refilled. They currently serve, on average, 28 years. Without the need for strategic retirement, we would probably end up with 32-36 people on the court.
What 250-year-old gun control law did they overturn?
The only overturned gun control laws I know of that originated before 1773 were either repealed 232 years ago with the ratification of the 2nd amendment, or were discriminatory on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, previous condition of servitude, etc, and overturned by much earlier courts and/or legislatures.
To my knowledge, these justices overturned no laws originating earlier than 1960.
It's not like they're going to resign and there's no mechanism to remove them so, uh, unless you're advocating violence I don't see how that's going to work. I think we need to pack the court up to around 17 justices and get back to the business of government instead of playing activist on guns, civil rights, corporate power and abortion.
They can actually be impeached and removed from office.
Right, but that mechanism presupposes functional government and about half of the government doesn't give a shit about governing, or anything other than seizing power at the moment, so that's not going to happen.
I'm unsure what the standard is for removing Supreme Court Justices, but failing to recuse yourself from cases where you have a considerable appearance of conflict of interests should be one of them. For example, say, you took a large gift from somebody who would later be affected by one of your decisions, Clarence.
Also, there should be some automatic impeachment and removal for justices who lied under oath during their confirmation hearings. I think there is video evidence of most of the conservative justices saying that they considered Roe to be precedent, which means that they wouldn't overturn it. That was clearly a lie.
If I lied during my job interview about something important, I would expect to be fired. And they should, too.
I'm disabled, so not me personally, but frankly when it comes to conservatives that have devoted their lives to causing as many other people to suffer as possible, yeah, I'm advocating violence.