[SIZE=11pt]With the Supreme Court once more in the spotlight I was wondering is about time that body was reformed?[/SIZE] [SIZE=11pt]To me the US Supreme Count was always meant to be a tool of the establishment a conservative (with small c) block against progressive change with its ability to rule any law ‘unconstitutional’.[/SIZE] [SIZE=11pt]I mean it was mean to be appointed by and from the political establishment and so was presumed to always favour that political establishment.[/SIZE] [SIZE=11pt]So do you think it needs reform and if it does what do you think should be done? [/SIZE]
I don't think the court would know what freedom was, if what crawled up their ass and died crawled back out.
The life term idea was intended to de-politicize the court. It hasn't worked so well, but I don't know what else to do. If the justices could be removed or voted out for making unpopular decisions, I don't think that would be any less political. Probably worse. It hasn't always worked that way, with key progressive rulings on civil rights, abortion, and homosexuality. You couldn't have Congress become self-policing. Republican majorities would ignore the constitution. Minorities would end up with no rights at all. That looks like a path to dictatorship. How do unconstitutional laws get removed in other countries?
All other judges are susceptible to impeachment. This should apply to the ones on the Supreme Court as well.
They can be impeached, for criminal activity or violating their oath of office. Not for making unpopular decisions. Similar to the President.
Tyrsonswood Why debate anything? Possibly because debate can be the beginning of change? Very few things in the history of modern political thought have come about spontaneously without any previous debate. Yes it is just us here but…hey you got something else you want to do?
Karen Here is an interesting article http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-franklin-roosevelt-clashed-with-the-supreme-court-and-lost-78497994/ It’s about FDR’s clash with the SC over New Deal legislation. I’ve suggested a couple of changes here before - There should be set terms. The President should nominate a candidate, Congress should nominate a candidate and the Judiciary should nominate a candidate then an open vote would be taken between them by the electorate. And here are some ideas from Erwin Chemerinsky the author of The Case Against the Supreme Court http://billmoyers.com/2014/07/15/its-time-to-reform-the-supreme-court-here-are-five-ways-to-do-it/
No I think the SCOTUS is fine atm, it's just we're running out of wiggle room for the use of logic and the maximization of the U.S. constitution's logical foundation. We're hitting social policy ills, because it's a slightly outdated document dealing with issues of speed the founding fathers couldn't have envisioned. 98% of the ideas and core of the document are great, but it needs to more specifically define and put in place definitions of congressional obstructionism that endangers the country due to political polarization. Checks and balances sure, but it must be specifically drawn a line where if any one politician or majority party decides to be obstructionist, to the point where it hurts the country as a whole, that's gotta be considers by the constitution via a breaking of that member's oath of office. Right now it's not.
It's the same issue with almost all asspects of our government. These peoiple are in too long. It should not be life long appointmnets, because the older people get, the more resistance they are to change. You have people deciding policy (and they do) who are stuck decades back. ten year appointments at the max.
I think veiwing the Supreme Court as a tool of the "political establishment" will lead many to throw in the towel, and chase Utopia, rather than doing the hard, sometimes boring, work of changing it. Ask any person concerned about reproductive freedom how a justice here or there can make a difference, and whether or not those justice appointments depend on election outcomes. BTW, the Supreme court, in January, agreed to hear an appeal of "Trinity Lutheran Church v. Pauley". A Missouri church wants to take part in a program where tax dollars are used to pave parking lots with used tire material. If the church wins, every taxpayer in America may be required to support religious schools in many ways. Vouchers. Etc. Enrollment in Catholic schools will rise, and unlike in public schools, no one will tell the kids a thing about religious liberty, or discuss the topic of abortion. Charter schools, which Chase Bank loves, will dismantle and privatize many public schools. It will be very much harder to sway the opinions of Americans in 20 years. Why? Because they will have been brainwashed in church-owned schools, K-12. I even think it will lead to more hate crimes and terrorism, because religion brainwashes and leads to intolerance.
