401
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 29 Jul 2024
401 points (97.2% liked)
politics
19148 readers
2598 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
A country of +330M habitants could and should have more than 9 Supreme Court justices, also the ninth Circuit should have been splitted long ago
And the 5th circuit should be launched into orbit.
But orbits decay. Even if they burn up on re-entry, I don’t want to risk inhaling vaporized fascist bootlicker. That shit causes cancer.
Oh, I meant a solar grazing orbit. With multiple gravity assists from Venus.
That’s more like it.
That's an orbit worth pondering.
Hyperbolic orbit
Huh. Did not realize that was considered an orbit. #themoreyouknow
why does the quantity of justices need to scale with population? i get that with house representatives since they’re supposed to represent a cohesive population of the country with similar local interests, but that isn’t the case with SCOTUS.
In the 2022-2023 term, the U.S. Supreme Court received approximately 7,000 to 8,000 petitions for certiorari, of which only a small fraction were granted a hearing. The Court agreed to hear about 70 cases. This means that the vast majority of cases—about 99%—were rejected and did not make it onto the Court's docket.
I'm not sure how more justices would help that. They don't all hear separate cases - they rule together as one court.
how does more justices help with that? do they not all hear every case? wouldn't that end up being inconsistent?
The idea would essentially be that they wouldn't all hear every case. You'd randomly assign a panel of say 5 justices from the pool and each panel would hear their own cases.
That way we stop bullshit like what Thomas did in his Dobbs concurrence where he straight up said he thinks cases like Obergefell (gay marriage), Lawrence (can't criminalize gay sexual acts), and Griswold (contraception) also need to be reversed and all but instructed conservative legal circles to back challenges to those cases. Since there'd be no guarantee that a baseless partisan legal challenge would end up in front of favorable justices they would be much less likely to succeed.
This does potentially introduce a problem with consistency, but such a problem isn't unsolvable. You could institute a rule that allows for basically an appeal on a SCOTUS ruling to be heard by either a different panel of justices or the entire body as a whole, for example. It obviously wouldn't be perfect, but we don't need perfection. We need SCOTUS to not be some unaccountable council of high priests who can act with blatant partisan interest and we can't do anything about it.