521
Biden to announce plans to reform US supreme court – report
(www.theguardian.com)
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 27 Jul 2024
521 points (99.4% liked)
politics
19144 readers
5374 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
ELI5 is for someone else to provide. I'll instead give you the answer an adult deserves.
Compare a SCOTUS justice to any legislator or the President: The legislators and President must act as their corporate donors wish or they'll not be re-elected. But, the fundamental ideology of the US (and prerequisite to a world I wish to live in) mandates that the minority be protected from the majority and the majority from the mediocre outcomes of democracy.
This role is never safe, politic, or popular. The lack of term limits allows SCOTUS justices to judge without these concerns. We hope they act for the People. But, we also risk of them acting as they do now.
The system is broken. But, the proposed changes make it arguably much worse as they limit the ability for the system to self-recover in the future. They appear at best to be kicking the can to future generations (typical boomer shit).
So you agree that the current set up of the supreme court is flawed because they are making decisions overturning decades of precedence and putting human rights on the chopping block. What would you rather see done? Because as it stands, it'll likely take at least a decade if not 3 decades to recover from the current conservative bent of the court. A time when rights will continue to be overturned. Should we not try to fix things now by imposing term limits so the justices aren't able to die on the bench or be appointed for 40 years? Should we accept that people's rights are gonna be thrown out because of a 40 years long mission by the Christian right to bring the country back to the 50s?
Not trying to be an asshole. I'd really like to know what you'd rather do.
You're not presenting as one, at all.
Ethics code development and enforcement for sitting justices, just as the sitting justice requested.
So, your solution is just ethics enforcement? How would that help with current justices choosing to read the constitution in a way that removes rights? Ethics is definitely important, but it won't change constitutional originalism from impacting us for decades. What's your opinion on just expanding the court?
No. A sitting justice proposed the solution. It's not mine.
With wthics enforcement Thomas, for example, would be removed in short order.
If Democrats expand the court then Republicans will escalate the next time they win the Presidency. In order to overcome the immediate issues responsibly, Democrats would need to expand the court and prevent any future retaliatory expansion.
I'll not answer if I believe they should or should not. I present facts and reasoning to enhance wisdom of others' choices. But, there's no "right" or "good" answer here. My conclusion doesn't matter. It'd only hinder others in choosing for themselves.
Okay I think I understand more about what you're arguing for. Ethics with actual consequences, meaning removal. That makes worlds more sense.
One thing I disagree with is that your conclusion doesn't matter. Reading others reasoning and their conclusion is important for people who haven't made a decision, then making their decisions. I've made my decision personally, and even though I disagree with you on parts, I think it's important to be able to not just discuss facts but ones own conclusion drawn from those facts. Not saying you're not capable of discussing more than facts, just that I think you should be more willing to discuss your own conclusions as well. Connecting the dots of facts and reasoning is only half of the battle, people can look at those and not think about what the conclusion could be. Or draw conclusions that are completely contradictory of what reasoning was provided. Theory isn't just facts but also conclusions. And discussion in a public forum like this can be important for those willing to learn.
It feels good to be understood. I appreciate you.
I agree with the entirety of the rest of what you've said. However, it assumes that the rest of the audience is as reasonable and committed to good faith as we seem to be. I've absolutely no issues expressing myself to a different audience. For example, if it was just you and I speaking in private then I'd believe it responsible, wise, and perhaps my obligation to society to say more.
Ok next question, because I think I interpreted the term differently than you did.
There are two types of term limits right? Quantity of terms, and length of terms.
Status quo: Q - one term, L - for life.
Wouldn't limiting the length but not the quantity maintain the incentive for impartiality? So there is no concept of a second term?
I'm not trolling btw, I'm looking for an honest airing of the Q.
You're not coming across that way. edit: meaning I'm perceiving good faith
I'm not understanding how implementing a length limit but not a quantity limit would positively effect impartiality. That's what currently exists for the entirety of legislature. They're far from free to make their own choices.
But, what if we had both a length limit and a term limit of one term? That seems a decent idea on the surface. But, I want to think about it for awhile before saying anything meaningful
For an Internet discussion, I really appreciate your open and honest exchange. Good day fellow Internet person.
Myself as well. You and another have me questioning how it could be done well instead of only attacking the systemic corruption.
I dug up what appears to be a decent academic paper on the subject. I know I've no time to read it for at least three weeks. In about a month I may try to grab your attention again.
Thank you for engaging in good faith despite the bandwagon downvotes.
I read the academic paper I found. And, I've had a first conversation about this with another IRL.
I still think length term limits on Justices is like many other good ideas: There's no practical way to implement. All would result in severe collateral damage due to the nature and complexity of the systemic context. But, my reasoning is much more nuanced.
Thank you. I appreciate that you pushed me along.
This does not explain how limiting a supreme court justice to serving for 20 years instead of for life would result in them losing impartiality.
You'd have to ask the question about a 20 year term to receive my perspective.
That's generally what's been the proposal when talking about scotus term limits. So when you answered the question of "how does scotus term limits affect impartiality?" it really ought to cover that.
I appreciate that you hold me to a higher standard than the status quo.
If we were to do this then 20 years and limitation to a single term seems prudent on the surface. But, I've yet to consider the effects upon the rest of governance in adequate nuance or for a responsible scope of time.
So, push me along.
Do you think it's a good idea to impose a limit of 20 years?
Does it function as you wish if there could be a second term?
FTFY
Hi SirDerpy. I think that the downvotes you are getting reflect disagreement with your opinions and it’s one thing I wish hadn’t translated from Reddit to this type of community. Too bad there aren’t “up/down votes for contribution” along side a set of others for agree/disagree. I perceive that your comments are thoughtful from your point of view, and I feel they contribute to the conversation. As such I am upvoting them.
checks username
FUCK you, I won't do what you tell me!
(In case there's any doubt, this Raging Against you is purely a silly bit, not meant as a totally uncalled for personal attack 😁)
I’ve been using the name since my first bbs login in 94. Band formed in 2001.
Also screw Bert Kreischer for making people assume I am an imitating fan!
Took you a while to piss them off enough that they formed a band about it, I guess 😁
Screw that hack in general, really..
Hey now, don't make assumptions! That could very well be Florence, after all.
Nah, it's Florence AND The Machine, not Florence The Machine.
Now that you mention it, though, I wonder whether Florence ever had beef with Tom Morello 🤔
Foiled again!
Seems I want to share. I've been at this, off and on, for a long time.
I say the basically the same things over time. As we as a society slowly progress in our collective understanding the reaction to those things suddenly changes. For example, they hated what I had to say about Biden stepping down until he did and everyone could see the results. The reaction to identical comments was reversed overnight.
I'm not here to be safe, politic, or popular. I don't want everyone to agree with me. I only want them to learn their systems, to reason their perspectives, and to communicate them with adequate nuance to be easily respected.
I appreciate you. I assume there's ten like you for every one that speaks up. Sincerely, thank you for speaking up and for reading this comment. It feels good to be understood.
I cannot parse this comment. The wording is, at best, awkward