The Supremes under a microscope

"What is perhaps unexpected is that it took Ginsburg’s death for Washington to confront the fact that the Supreme Court faces a legitimacy crisis.

“This is a long-overdue reckoning,” says Daniel Epps, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis who clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy and has become an authority on how the court works—and why it doesn’t. “Maybe a crisis will cause Americans to really reconsider: Why do we give the courts so much power?”

“Nothing important should turn on whether some old person chooses to retire or keep working until they’re in their 90s,” says Epps. “It’s a crazy way to run a country.”

So, what’s a more sensible approach? In 2019, Epps co-authored an influential piece in the Yale Law Review surveying some reform ideas for the Court

Epps: It’s a very slippery term, and people use it to mean a lot of different things. For our purposes, maybe the most helpful way to describe it is as the ability of the Supreme Court to resolve disputes in ways people find acceptable even if they don’t like the decision.

Stanton: How do you differentiate between “the law” and “politics”? I forgot who originally made this observation, but it has been said that the law is just the politics of a moment frozen in time.

Epps: What you’re asking is a really, really hard question, and it’s one that anyone who thinks seriously about law struggles with.

If you believe that, though, it becomes increasingly hard to understand why the Supreme Court should be allowed to say any laws are unconstitutional. Why should the Supreme Court get to declare a law unconstitutional if we think that what the court is doing is just making a political judgment? We need an answer to this question, and how you answer it may imply how much power you think the court should have.

There’s a number of serious democratic deficits with the presidential election process, and then with the judicial confirmation process, where the Senate is disproportionately skewed towards smaller states. You end up with an institution that is, as we say, counter-majoritarian. (That means minority rule, which is to say White power, IMO)

A system is not going to work if everybody is just doing everything that they’re not forbidden from doing.

https://www.politico.com/news/magaz...form-ideas-term-limits-rbg-age-packing-421203

 

First off we are a Republic, not a democracy. Second, dems are just.expressing sour grapes over losing. Had the dems taken control of the Senate and White House none of this would be of concern. For Democrats it is all about power, not democracy nor freedom.

I am thoroughly enjoying watching lefties squirm while the country swings back to conservative. Liberals refuse to believe they are being rejected.

 

Swing back to conservative? Since Kennedy, GOP presidents nominated 15 out of 21 SC judges. The SC has been conservative for a long time, despite the population as a whole leaning liberal. That's exactly what the OP is talking about. 60%+ of the SC representing no more than 40-45% of the population. Of course, that 40-45% like it and will do everything in their power to keep it that way.

 

The population does not lean liberal.

 

we aren’t in a crisis.

the court shouldn’t be political. it’s become more because the dems aren’t willing to compromise in Congress...healthcare, immigration

 

Maybe not in your neck of the woods, but overall it does. Typical self serving bias to assume (to paraphrase) "I am the majority".

If we had popular vote and everyone would vote, there would never be a GOP president again, unless the GOP would shift to the left. The ONLY reasons the GOP has so much power are because the EC and low voter turnout.

 

Of course, the ones who have minority rule don't see a problem. What else is new?

 

Mitch "The Party of NO!" McConnell is just all please and thank you...

 

So either you didn't read it, didn't understand it, or... more likely, a little of both.

 

I read it, and understood it...and understand my on the left have gone out in way left field

 

Not sure what you mean by minority rule...who has that? In my country we have a Republic and our system works on the bases of the US Constitution which was created by the States, who's representatives were elected by the people

on a larger note though more American ID themselves as Conservatives, which means they value the Founding documents, then ID themselves as Liberal, which is they follow the modern direction of the Dem Party, which wants to fundamentally transform our Nation and going away from those Founding Documents. So, we don't have this so called "minority rule"

 

Yes, we’re a left of center country. Hell, even George Will acknowledges that data point.

 

While that doesn't make sense, you're predictable.

Minority rule isn't democracy, and it's highly susceptible to dictator wannabees like Trump.

And it's getting worse, as the proportion of Whites declines.

What you want is some batsh*t crazy dystopia. Which sounds exactly like what we have in Trump..

 

If you believe that this is some popular swing, you might want to review what happened yesterday when Donald Trump had to venture out in public, away from White House podium, and the comfort of his screened, fawning mob.

 

what minority rule are you talking about?

what does race have do with your argument?

No, I want how our Constitution has worked for 200 plus years...you are the one that wants to change it

 

What happened? Did some leftists try and kill him?

 

In your country, a crooked carnival barker became President of the United State without ever getting 50% of the vote in any contested election, ever.

It is also the height of hypocracy for Trumpsters to be talking about “founding documents”. Your fuhrer has no respect for them at all, and betrays his oath of office on a more or less ongoing basis now.

 

I don’t understand his position. If the Supreme Court doesn’t get to decide if a law is constitutional or not, who does?

So I’m going to ignore the fact that he acknowledges he’s a democrat... I’m also going to ignore the fact that he had NOTHING like this to say when Obama was about to make it a 6-3 liberal court with Garland and I’ll just address the absurdity of his position.

Term limits and SCOTUS openings every two years is a horrendous idea. You would have massive fundamental diametrically opposed changes in how the country function every 10 years or so.

We would have abortion and then not have abortion then back again. We would have guns then not have guns and then back again. We would have an electoral college and not have an electoral college and then back again. And EVERY major policy decision in between.
This is an awful idea.

 

I'm rather surprised at this statement of yours. It was my understanding that the courts, including the Supreme Court, were overall squarely on the liberal side.

Maybe this has to do with definitions of "liberal" and "conservative"?
What to you might seem "conservative"-leaning might to me seem "liberal" ?

Yes, the GOP might have nominated more SC judges, but many of these judges were (or turned out to be?) basically low-tax moderate progressives.

You can go all the way back to Roe v Wade, if you are having any trouble seeing this (or even earlier than that, Brown v Board of Education, which was a highly questionable stretch of the Constitution)

 

You mean where the people who were mourning Ginsburgs death were? Are you under the impression that was not a liberal audience?

 

So, you think SC judges nominated by conservative presidents are liberals?

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm

 

John Roberts is indisputably socially liberal

 

Funny how its only now, when Trump is in office and picking and choosing who gets nominated that people worry about the SCOTUS's ability to judge the constitutionality of laws. Dems sure didn't have a problem with Obama appointing two judges to SCOTUS. You never heard about packing the court or changing SCOTUS's power. Now you hear it every chance that Trump has had the opportunity to nominate a judge to SCOTUS.

Its obviously nothing more than an attempt by Democrats to gain power. To get their agenda's pushed through even though they KNOW it all wouldn't survive an examination of whether its Constitutional or not. And just like the nuclear option being used by Dems so they could appoint judges without interference by Repubs backfired on them by Repubs using the nuclear option again because precedent was set....this will no doubt backfire on Dems if they succeed in their wish. They will not remain in power forever. The problem being that they can't imagine NOT being in power. They can't accept the fact that they will lose on occasion. And what they do now, will have consequences when they do lose in the future. And that is part of the problem with their current platform. If they do pack the court, or find a way to limit the little power that SCOTUS does have (and make no mistake...it is actually very little power) it WILL come back to bite them in the ass. History tends to repeat itself for those that don't pay attention to it. And Dems are not just ignoring history, but attempting to rewrite it.

 

Its change occurs more slowly. We've shifted until JFK would now be one of us. Back then he was a playboy drugsucking skirtchasing son-of-a-bootlegger who somehow miraculously did not get us nuked over Cuba.

When the EC goes your way all sunshine prevails. Children hurl flower petals and bands play sweet songs as our glory days return. When it's agin, it's a sin.

As for voter turnout, please keep legalizing retail marijuana. Couch-lock causes low voter turnout. Apathy. The stuff that wipes out the so-called youth vote, because if the Bernie Bros don't get their way then they won't show up. Is Biden likely to cave to Bernie Bros? It's certain that Harris would be. Is that enough to get them to come vote, just hoping he drops dead and she seizes the reins? Nah......

And if black folks stay irked at "you ain't black enough," from a certified honky mofo like Biden, then he's alienated that bunch as well. I can see where some folks could stay REALLY irked. I would be if another race told me how to be a honky mofo. Certified or not, I'd stay home and chill.

 

Old Mitch is a genius.