https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/30/supreme-court-ethics-poll-00119236
A new survey shows three-in-four voters want the justices bound to an ethics code.
Sure, faith in the Supreme Court is down, but that's only because the court is dominated by judges who were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote and didn't represent the values of the majority of Americans.
... Well, that and the fact that the conservative justices on the court openly lied about their positions on important issues.
... Or is it just that many of us are still pretty fucking outraged that they stepped in and gave the presidency to George W. Bush, who lost both the popular vote, and would have lost the electoral college vote, too under ANY AND ALL of the proposed ballot counting measures in Florida, had the court actually... You know... Not forbidden them from counting them.
... Of course it might also be a little bit about the fact that Republicans rigged the judicial appointment system to block a Democratic nominee a year from the end of Obama's term on the grounds that it was too close to an election, and rushed Trump's nominee mere weeks from an election, in the most nakedly hypocritical moment in Senate history.
...Then again, maybe it's just because the conservatives on this court have turned the court from an institution that protects the citizens and safeguards rights into an institution which strips rights away.
... Or perhaps it's just that they've thrown away any attempt to even pretend to be a serious judicial institution when they did away with the entire doctrine of standing when it suited their ideological purposes.
... Or maybe it's their use of the Shadow Docket to massively alter the laws of the land with quick, secret rulings with little deliberation or explanation, and which they don't even sign their name to.
Or, maybe it's just the tiny, tiny issue that they have been caught red-handed taking bribes in exchange for their votes.
Or, no... Could it be that AFTER being caught doing this, they have absolutely refused to step down, and refused to regulate themselves in any way, and ludicrously declared that even Congress can't regulate them?
Any of those things?
How about the appointment of an unreformed rapist and drug abuser who demonstrated his utter lack of capacity for judicial temperament during his confirmation hearings? Red-faced shrieking is a bad look for a judge.
To the true-believer Trumpies, of course, Kavanaugh's status as a rapist is a plus, as it demonstrates the attitude that he brings to cases involving women and sexual minorities.
The craziest thing about Kavenaugh is that he's a better Justice than several of his conservative peers.
1.) The Supreme Court should have a binding code of ethics.
2.) The maximum age for a sitting Supreme Court Justice should be 65. The maximum age for appointment should be 55.
3.) The Supreme Court should have a term limit of 12 years with a maximum of one term in a person's lifetime.
4.) The Supreme Court should be expanded. Not entirely sure to what number but in my head I envision a pool of justices from which are randomly chosen and assigned:
First: 9 are chosen for 1 term to review the cases that are being asked to be heard by the Supreme Court and determine if they should be on the docket two terms later.
Second: 9 are chosen to hear the cases that are on the docket for that term.
Third: 9 backup justices are chosen to take the place any of the currently active ones in the event they are unable to perform their duties. I find it hard to believe it would be necessary but absolute safety and caution tells me the backup pool should total 18. 9 to take the place of those reviewing cases and 9 to take the place of those actively hearing cases.
Fourth: No justice will serve in the same role for more than two consecutive terms and no more than five total terms in any one role over their 12 year appointment.
But that's just all the shit I made up in my head.
the shit I made up
Ah, so you've applied a similar amount of rigor as the founding fathers.
The chief justice’s wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, has made millions in her career recruiting lawyers to prominent law firms, some of which have business before the court. Now, a letter sent to Congress claims that may present a conflict of interest.
SCOTUS has been garbage for decades, their only purpose is to uphold the laws on white supremacy this country was built on
If voters want changes, they should go to the polls, and stop electing idiots like Trump who nominate garbage.
"If voters want change, they should go to the polls" doesn't work anymore. I don't know if it is the Democrats' spinelessness or the fact that the GOP is doing everything that they can to gerrymander and rig elections, or when that fails, just try to overthrow the damn government. We really need a plan B, though.
It's really not the Democrats' fault.
Democrats have not had true, fillibuster-proof control of Congress since the late 1970s.
For about seven months in 2009-10 they had something pretty close to that if you count the independents who caucused with them, but they also had the traitor, Joe Lieberman who ruined Democrats' one chance to get a public option for healthcare.
I love how apologists for Democrats' spinelessness never mention that the party could have done away with the filibuster forever with just 50 votes, and always pretend that Lieberman didn't have Ben Nelson's help in killing the public option.
They don't want to get rid of the filibuster because then they might actually have to pass substantive bills instead of giveaways to insurance companies and measly tax credits
Democrat's spinelessness
What you seem mad about here are a small number of Democrats who refuse to get on board for big progressive bills.
What you're missing is that those Democrats aren't spineless, but rather they disagree. Their voters disagree with other Democrats and so pressure their representative to take stances other Democrats oppose.
This happens because the Democrat party is a coalition party. They don't move in lockstep as Republicans do, about anything.
You and I would likely vote for Democrats, given the alternative, and I assure you that we have very different politics. For instance, you see removing the fillibuster as a good way to pass reforms and I see it as a good way to get trans people killed the next time a Republicans commands both gavels.
What you’re missing is that those Democrats aren’t spineless, but rather they disagree.
If they're so scared of doing the right thing that they won't, that's spinelessness. If they don't want to do the right thing and will fight against it, I am under no obligation to support them.
Democrat party
uh...
For instance, you see removing the fillibuster as a good way to pass reforms
And you oppose reform.
I see it as a good way to get trans people killed the next time a Republicans commands both gavels.
They're not going to let the filibuster stop them from doing it if they actually want to do it. They're not going to find just enough turncoats to keep the filibuster just to defend trans people. This is what I mean about spinelessness. You're so scared about what Republicans might do in the future that you're willing to preserve the filibuster, keeping badly needed reforms from happening. If you wanted to have protections for trans people, you would support ending the filibuster so we could put some in place. Republicans are gonna do what they're gonna do in either case. You'd rather gain nothing first. The more reforms we pass, the more popular policy Republicans will have to muster the political capital to undo before they can make things worse than they are today.
You're using a vulnerable minority as a rhetorical shield to defend a procedural nonsense that has been used to hold back human rights from minorities since Jim Crow. A proud tradition for what both you and Joe McCarthy call the Democrat Party.
In genuinely surprised that you put all this effort into a response and zero effort into processing what I said.
You skip over my actual points and just... ramble
And here we come to the part where a centrist can't address what a progressive has said and condescendingly dismisses it instead.
Concession accepted.
Yeah, that would have been a great strategy had we started it 30 years ago.
As it is the only way to repair this court in our lifetime is an overwhelming democratic sweep of the Senate, (and winning the presidency) and then massively restructuring the court to add enough new seats to get control back into the hands of the majority of Americans, and our of the hands of those corrupt, bigoted theocrats.
The party of ratfuckers would never let something like "the constituents' interest in political representation" keep them from winning elections.
We'll have to wait for them to die, too. With modern medical technology ACB could live to be 200. Then what?