A democracy shouldn’t have a single person in power who wasn’t elected.
The United States needs to discard the “republic” part of our democratic republic.
- no more electoral college
- no SCOTUS
- no appointments for positions of power
- no private political donations
And in order for these changes to happen, rich men in positions of power will need to die.
I feel like if a corrupt executive and legislative branch can get elected, having an elected judicial branch doesn’t exactly fix anything.
…of natural causes so that their entrenched power can be passed on to future generations.
Only six of them deserve to be replaced, but they should also spend the rest of their lives in prison.
Clean it all out and start over again.
Did you even read the article?
term limits is a start
The real problem is the lifetime tenure of the justices. The Founders did that for good reason, to insulate the Court from the immediate politics of the time. But people are simply living longer now, and Republicans figured out how to ratfuck the Court to stack it in their favor. (Helped in no small part by RBG, who could not be convinced to retire at the right time). Openings on the Court are so rare that it is worth expending significant political effort to get them to go your way.
If Democrats ever get control of the Presidency and Congress again, they should immediately move to blow up the Court to 13 members. They can do it by immediately turning it up to 11, and then making it 13 two years later, in order to stagger the changes. But this is important enough that they should blow up the filibuster to do it.
(13 is a magic number because it matches the number of Federal district courts.)
And then, after the bill is passed, they should work with Republicans on a framework to add term limits to the Constitution. Each of the 13 justices gets a 13 year term, each justice could serve up to two terms, consecutive or not, and would have to be re-appointed and re-confirmed for their second term. They can even tie the number of justices directly to the number of Federal circuits, so that it is harder to ratfuck on the future. 26 years is long enough to insulate a justice from politics. And out of our 116 justices to date, only 28 have served more than 26 years.
But by giving every President the right to nominate one justice per year, it makes the process more regular, and the political payoff for engineering a single appointment becomes less attractive. Supreme Court turnover becomes a predictable thing.
At this point, Republicans may be willing to support that amendment, because the alternative would be for President Newsom to appoint 4 Liberals to the court for Life in quick succession, and wait for their own full control to ratfuck it again. That might take a while.
It’s so adorable that you think Democrats might ever actually do anything if they got power. Enjoy your cookie.
We have two pro capitalist parties in the US.
What’s interesting is that during the great depression they knew that economic collapse would lead to a socialist revolution, and so put in the work to “inoculate” the US against it. They would give us a little socialism, so that we wouldn’t go all in. Medicare, social security, minimum wage, all these things came out of that philosophy. And it fucking worked. The US had the single most robust economy in human history from the 40s all the way through to the 1970s. When, in response to the civil rights movement, white southerners actively voted against their own self interest KNOWINGLY, so that black people wouldn’t get a fair share of the pie. Nixon began the week to work to dismantle the New Deal, and we’re basically living with the shattered broken corpse of the best social program we were ever going to get with votes.
The US had the single most robust economy in human history from the 40s all the way through to the 1970s.
This was mostly due to being basically the only industrial economy to not be bombed to bits during WW2. We had the entire world reliant on US manufacturing
That certainly helped. But it lasted nearly 30 years and didn’t start to crumble until the Nixon administration inventivized big businesses to begin hoarding wealth. By just about any metric you look at, the US economy during those decades was the best any economy had ever been. And in 1973 it took a nose dive, and the only metric that continued upward was lifespan but that’s turning around now too.
It took most of the world that long to really rebuild. It took the UK nearly a decade to end rationing after the war for example.
You don’t have to convince me the Republicans ruined the great economy that gave us, that’s a given.
I’m more so getting at the reason we did so well. Having social security doesn’t suddenly mean your economy is globally dominant
The thing is, without the massive economic boon provided by those social programs, the US really wouldn’t have excelled the way it did. Wealth distribution was at an all time high. Laborers were becoming wealthy by going to work. Bell Labs was employing people to sit around and dream up problems to solve. The wealthiest 1% had about 8% of the wealth. Exports started steadily declining in the 1950’s, but the amount of new production was only going up. In 1966, exports declined nearly 2 billion dollars, and money spent building new factories was nearly 10 billion dollars.
Americans were consuming more of their own products. Post war production carried the US through about 1955, but to say that was the only reason the US did so well for 30 years after WW2 is really reductive and just plain wrong. It helped, but it’s far from the only cause and stopped being a factor pretty quick.
A boy can dream, can’t he?
You do not need a constitutional amendment. Until 1911; part of a Supreme Court Justice’s job was “riding circuit”, to serve on more local circuit courts. This practice was established and abolished by Congress. Congress has the existing constitutional authority to assign Justices to circuit courts.
There is also a recently proposed TERM act, which would promote Justices to senior Justices after 18 years. A senior Justice is still a Justice, but would not actively decide cases unless there was a shortage of active Justices.
Congress could also impeach some of the current Justices. Either for partisan political reasons; perjury at their confirmation; or blatant corruption.
Removed by mod
Good luck when 35% of the country holds the rest of us hostage.
they should work with Republicans
Have…have you not been paying attention?
Republicans want power. They don’t care how they get it. They will negotiate in bad faith to get it.
That’s why you need to add 4 young, Liberal justices in thir 40s (who would serve for 40+ years with a lifetime appointment) before starting to work with Republicans. Make it so that the alternative to not working together is much worse for them.
You must have missed it, but Harris spent her valuable time mostly courting Republicans for a reason. Not Ds (millions sat this one out), not independents, but Rs.
Why would she does this, when we all know she had to court independents to win? It’s a mathematical necessity.
Do you know why? I wonder if there’s any connection to the billion dollars she raised (at least)? Hmmmm, it’s a mystery.
Well said, and great idea.
The time was a decade ago.
One author is in the federalist society (the reason SC is corrupt)…
And the other seems to believe international laws shouldn’t exist and Israel is totally cool…
They want us to “accept” it’s corrupt and somehow do away with the entire notion of a SC and replace it with some “populist rule”.
Similarly, progressives are increasingly converging on the idea of both expanding and “disempowering” federal courts. Attentive to the reality that the supreme court especially is not and rarely has been their friend, left-leaning advocates are finding ways to empower ordinary people, trading the hollow hope of judicial power for the promise of popular rule.
To label as “nihilists” those sketching an alternate, more democratic future is, in other words, not only mistaken but outright bizarre. Rather than adhere to the same institutionalist strategies that helped our current crisis, reformers must insist on remaking institutions like the US supreme court so that Americans don’t have to suffer future decades of oligarchy-facilitating rule that makes a parody of the democracy they were promised.
In Trump’s second term, the Republican-appointed majority on the supreme court has brought their institution to the brink of illegitimacy. Far from pulling it back from the edge, our goal has to be to push it off.
They’re right wingers trying to hijack progressivism to destroy the SC after it changes all the laws to how they want, and before the left can use it as a weapon to change the laws back.
I’d love to say people won’t be naive enough to fall for this, but I don’t want to lie
I think this is a misread of the article. They don’t seem to be suggesting any actual solution, and only mention “populist rule” in passing with no specifics.
But they do seem to be blaming the left for not doing anything about the problem. And I thought it was funny how at the top they were like “even liberals like Roberts”
The United States needs a completely new constitutional process, to stop idolizing as political gurus people who lived 300 years ago and did a great job for their time, but that’s over. In Europe, some countries, during that same period, had dozens of constitutions and nothing bad happened about it.
Oh no, our Conservatives have been prepping for a new Constitutional Convention, and already have a playbook planned to ratfuck that.
The process for that is that 2/3 of states need to call for a constitutional convention to start it. When in session, everything is fair game to be amended. The rules for that are not codified in advance and created by the members themselves. And whatever comes out of that must be approved by 3/4 of the states (currently 38) in order to be binding on everyone.
But , by my calculations, 182 million people live in the 12 most populous states. Since the US population in all states is 339 million, that means that a new constitution can be ratified by states with only 43% of the population, then bind everyone to it.
There is no doubt in my mind that this will result in those states who did not vote for the new constitution seceding.
Either I haven’t explained myself well, or you haven’t understood me. I’m not talking about following any set path; I’m talking about throwing everything out the window and starting from scratch.
It is clear that establishing rules that apply in California and Texas requires consensus and compromise, but even federalism needs to be rethought, if you start from where you are today, you’ll never get very far.
At the first continental congress, or whatever it was called, there were no rules to go on. You’d have to go back there.
Where can I read more on constitutional convention?
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html
But it’s so small I can quote it here
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
While this seems to be written as only being for amendments, there is nothing keeping them from saying “we’re starting over from scratch” as an amendment. Literally the only thing they put off limits in this process is the composition of the Senate.
Unfortunately, there’s no process for that. Single judges can be removed via impeachment, but being a partisan hack is not a high crime.
Similarly, nothing can happen with Conservatives controlling the House and Senate.
Oh, they know…
https://fedsoc.org/bio/ryan-doerfler
They want to trick people into dissolving the SC before the left gains control and can replace the problematic ones while taking steps to prevent this from happening again.
It’s like a kid that walks up and slaps a peer, then immediately says “no tag backs” and says the game is over…
The federalist society got what it wants out of the SC, and now they want people to stop abusing it before we can undo what they just did.
I don’t know why googling authors isn’t the norm when billionaires own all the media companies. If you don’t you’ll never notice clear hypocrites like Ryan Doerfler.
Alas, the Constitution does little to protect against incompetent voters who refuse to act to protect their democracy.
It’s not incompetence, that would imply people tried to prevent this. It’s apathy. If “did not vote” had been a candidate:
A core problem is that impeachment votes have become a team popularity contest, with the details of charges, innocence, guilt, etc. being irrelevant except for theatrics.
It’s time to accept that the US
supreme courtis illegitimate and must be replaced | Ryan Doerfler and Samuel MoynFixed the title for you.
Is it illegitimate because its a conservative majority?
It’s illegitimate because Mitch McConnell refused to hold a vote on Obama’s last SC pick, because he knew it would pass if that vote was held. So he left the SC one member short until Trump won, and they confirmed his pick instead. Basically, he (and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee) exercised a two-person veto on the pick.
He claimed it was too close to an election to act, but then when RBG passed away with even less time before an election, he pressed ahead with Trump’s pick anyway.
He made up a new rule, then abandoned it when it was expedient to do so. If rules mattered, one of those picks would have been different.
So he did or didnt break the law?
“illegitimate” is different than “illegal”. In some context they are the same, but “illegitimate” can also mean “against rules” or “against custom”.
The President nominates these officials, but they take office “with the advice and consent of the Senate”. I take that to mean that after the President consults with the Senate, he makes an appointment, and the Senate is obligated to give an up-or-down vote on it.
I remember that time well, and Merrick Garland (yes, that guy) was the compromise candidate that Obama picked because he had the respect, of a lot of Republican Senators. The Senate had a constitutional duty to put it to an up or down vote, which Mitch ignored, because he would not like the outcome. (If Garland didn’t have any Republican support, after all, they could have just held the vote, and voted it down. But that would have given Obama another chance to nominate someone else.)
There is no law that says “the Senate must act within this period of time”. We can’t haul McConnell to the brig because of it. Yet, it is clear to me that he flat out ignorea something the Constitution obligated him to do. It can be clearly seen as illegitimate, especially when he changed those rules a few years later.
Got ya, makes sense!
