The Supreme Court isn't broken and has served this country very well over time.
It doesn't need to be fixed.
Rather it needs to quit being made a political battleground by the parties.
Rotating term limits would be even better (though expansion is helpful too) but I believe that would require constitutional change which is very difficult despite it being referred to as a “living document”.
You don't think the court's judicial and ideological philosophy should reflect that of the American people? That's wild. What are some other cool opinions that you have?
@3 does the progressive ideology philosophy reflect the American people? Based on the last election it doesn’t even reflect a super liberal city like Seattle much less the whole country. The court is not broken amd Rich is only crying because they are not ruling the way he wants. The WA state supremes are majority libs and have issued some truly bizarre things (sound transit for example) yet I hear little support for packing that court.
The Senators who confirmed Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett in each case represented well under 50 percent of the American people. That's not democratic.
@1,we allow justices to speak at partisan events hosted by partisan organizations - it's been a political body for a long time (if not ever) and to say it's not broken is flat out denial of the reality
SCOTUS should at least have a justice for every circuit court. preferably 4 are added when the party I support is in power, but nevertheless it makes sense to at least keep it consistent.
Only One Member of Congress from Washington Wants to ̶F̶i̶x̶ Destroy the Supreme Court
Court packing was a terrible idea when FDR tried it. It's a terrible idea today.
Thanks Rich for providing that handy list of low level politicians who want to declare war on the judiciary. None of them deserve reelection.
NAME (percent Senate representation):
Here’s an idea that will seem much less radical to the average voter: A prohibition on confirming any Supreme Court justice if the proportion of the U.S. population represented by those Senators voting to confirm is less than 50 percent. The message to Independents and casual voters is simple: If a candidate is so extreme they can’t get a majority of representation in the Senate, then they shouldn’t be confirmed.
@5/8 you may want to go back to your civics notes. The US is not a democracy, its a republic and there are good reasons for that. I'd especially reread James Madison and the tyranny of the majority.
RepubliKKKans, their fixers, enablers, lawyers, lobbyists, appointed-for-life neofascist Extreme Court injustices, QAnon goons, Proud Boys, Patriot Players, trophy bitches, bimbos, and their snotnosed heirs down to the dumbest and most gullible of MAGA rubes should all be hit and run over at a Jack-in-the-Box drive thru.
That is what it will take to regain democracy in the Divided States. In the meantime, we're all fucked up by RWNJ Texabamada.
Americans are majority moderate. By virtue of the 6-3 supermajority, the court is powerfully conservative, hence they're not representative of the people.
If you were elected to a local position, focus on local issues.
Among many regional, national, and global curses is the overhyping of media, particularly misinformation. Orange Turd knew this and has criminally used turning journalism into a one-sided media circus to its advantage. "Fake News!" The Reagans and Bushes are chortling in Hell for their four decades worth of senselessly irreparable damage.
Where is xina? I am amazed she hasn't posted a rightfully outraged comment.
@9 periwinkle for the WIN!! I like your common sense thinking. The world needs more of it.
Article III, Section II: "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."
This is interpreted as saying federal and supreme court justices are for life.
@12 no government (or court) is ever going to be an accurate reflection of the populace because the prevailing sentiments of the population are constantly changing. Do you think the current Seattle City Council is an accurate representation of the populace? I could argue it is not. This is one moment in time. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito will be the next two to retire, both are in their 70s now. If the Dem's stop with the circular firing squads and are able to win elections that matter there will be opportunity to shift the court back to the left. The one thing I do know though is the progressive worldview certainly won't help that case.
Be careful what you wish for. I can't shake the feeling that even if this proposal were enacted, we'd wind up with a SCOTUS that has an even bigger conservative majority.
The fix needed isn't partisan. Making the bench bigger or smaller is a partisan action that both sides can continue to adjust endlessly. We (ask the Judiciary, many agree) as a nation need shorter terms than 'life', and a slightly better definition of who gets to nominate and when.
There are issues, but playing with your food just because you don't like it won't make it palatable anytime soon, just cold.
The court is fine. It’s the people that are messed up.
True, but as @2 points out you're talking about fixes that would seem to require constitutional amendments that are wholly unrealistic in real and practical terms. Something something about not letting the desire for perfection be the enemy of the good (and I'm not even sure expansion would qualify as "good" to be honest, though it's got potential as an improvement, which is really testament to just how fundamentally warped the current system is.)
Well, with any luck Ketanji Brown Jackson will hound Clarence Thomas into retirement within a year or two, and then we'll at least be back to 5-4. (It's my fond hope that she has quietly made that her goal.)
@21 CKathes: Amen to that. We can only hope.
Irony Alert‼️ Two years ago Pramila Jayapal tried to boot Ed Markey out of the Senate and get him replaced by her pal Rep. Joe Kennedy. I lost all respect for her at that point. 🤮
@21 That presumes that the Democrats maintain the majority after the midterms.
Unfortunately the Republicans are going to paint every Democrat as a crazed defund the police anarchist.
Let’s hope Senators Kelly, Warniock, Masto, and Hassan can survive the assault.
If McConnell returns as majority leader there will be no further Biden appointments confirmed.
@3 Absolutely not. I think the supreme court should do its job and not become the "flavor of the week", the "whim of some political agenda" or God forbid the "will of the people".
The "will of the people" can so easily become the mob mentality.... say like the mob which attacked the Capitol... Should we follow the "will of those people".
Its the 3rd branch of the government, its job is to use jurisprudence in interpreting the law.... that's a big word for you ... so look it up, and rule on the law.
Its time to quit assuming the courts can't rule without it being composed of X% white, black, asian, transgender, LBQT etc. Their job is to interpret the law, not pander to the whim of the public or take soundings on what is in vogue. .... and I think we have and do have great minds on the SC and it has very little to do with race, creed or color.
In NAZI Germany the courts followed the "will of the people"...and look what we got. Is that what you are hoping for.?
How about we settle for the rule of law without prejudice.
So a judiciary made up of nine sitting justices = a solid and functional system. A judiciary made up of 13 justices will be Nazis. Got it, thanks!
Thankfully one state nor it’s radial bureaucrats that let Seattle fall into a state of urban blight, street murder and decay don’t dictate the federal judiciary. There truly is a God!
@26 I'm afraid you don't "got it". From your last comment is seems you will never "get it"
@ 26... Why not have 21 or 33 or 103 sitting justices..... each time we have a shift in the control of the legislature or office of the president, we can add more justices to tilt the courts to the controlling parties fancy.
Surprising...with the exception of writers like @11 and @12, a large number of these comments are not of the Seattle progressive type I expect of Stranger comments, or are they Repub Bots who got bored with writing ST comments?
Overturning Roe is basically giving a Big Finger to all women in the United States, by saying "you cannot control your own body; no physical autonomy for you". And this primarily Catholic Supreme Court is ready to go down the U.S. Bishops'-sponsored rabbit hole in a hot second.
I'm certainly not holding my breath that ANYONE could run Clarence Thomas off the Court...after all, he's been the worst of the 9 for over 25 years, and shame doesn't send him anywhere, nor Ginny Thomas either. They relish their spot as a 'power couple' inside the Beltway, while hacking away at anything that would give other citizens a more equitable and just life.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.