I have been dubious about expanding the number of supreme court justices but this is too much it is so blatant! Increasing to 13 giving each appellate court an associated justice sounds really good.
I have been dubious about expanding the number of supreme court justices but this is too much it is so blatant! Increasing to 13 giving each appellate court an associated justice sounds really good.
I didn't used to think so but my thoughts are changing there as well. Not sure exactly how to do it though: I think some sort of randomizer not linked to the four year presidential cycle, maybe a five year cycle, every justice who had been there four cycles would be out. Happens in July after the judicial year is over. People appionted near the beginning of a cycle (due to death, resignation, whatever) would get more time than someone appionted near the end of a cycle but thats the breaks.
I just read this, very interesting and thorough, I'm convinced and hope that somehow such a reform would pass. Best if done with a divided government, though admittedly harder.
"Lifetime" ain't what it was. SCOTUS was formed in 1789 when life expectancy was 40, not 76 as it is now. Given that a judge might become a supreme back then at about 30 or 35, it was a short term gig.
I agree, but failing to recuse is not as serious as failing to make an effort to objectively apply federal statutes and the Constitution. Supreme Court decisions have always, in varying degrees, been influenced by justices' personal and political views, but the justices never ruled on the basis of such views so blatantly before. The six Republican politicians on the Court have effectively announced that they can do whatever they want, and they know that they will get away with it. "Activists" does not begin to describe them. They've gone rogue.
I'll give examples so that I don't come off as just ranting. They invented the "major question doctrine" to allow themselves to strike down federal agency actions that they dislike because the agencies, acting pursuant to federal statutes, protect us from pollution and other harms. They allowed Texas to ban abortion while Roe v. Wade was still in effect. They have, so far only temporarily, allowed Idaho's abortion ban to override a federal statute that requires hospitals to provide emergency medical care. Finally, they effectively repealed section 3 of the 14th Amendment so that no state may keep an insurrectionist off its presidential ballot.
Not literally an insurrection, but, yes, a dereliction of duty to uphold the Constitution. And that makes it a violation of their oath of office and therefore an impeachable offense.
I hope the armed forces are loyal if the militias come out in November. Do I sound too gloomy? Is it not one of the possibilities? Some states won't ratify a Biden win? It's after midnight, I should get some winks.
I have been dubious about expanding the number of supreme court justices but this is too much it is so blatant! Increasing to 13 giving each appellate court an associated justice sounds really good.
I agree but also think Justices should be fixed terms and term limited.
I didn't used to think so but my thoughts are changing there as well. Not sure exactly how to do it though: I think some sort of randomizer not linked to the four year presidential cycle, maybe a five year cycle, every justice who had been there four cycles would be out. Happens in July after the judicial year is over. People appionted near the beginning of a cycle (due to death, resignation, whatever) would get more time than someone appionted near the end of a cycle but thats the breaks.
I just posted a link to a Brennan Center proposal for SCOTUS reform of term limits and appointments - makes a lot of sense.
I just read this, very interesting and thorough, I'm convinced and hope that somehow such a reform would pass. Best if done with a divided government, though admittedly harder.
"Lifetime" ain't what it was. SCOTUS was formed in 1789 when life expectancy was 40, not 76 as it is now. Given that a judge might become a supreme back then at about 30 or 35, it was a short term gig.
I agree, but failing to recuse is not as serious as failing to make an effort to objectively apply federal statutes and the Constitution. Supreme Court decisions have always, in varying degrees, been influenced by justices' personal and political views, but the justices never ruled on the basis of such views so blatantly before. The six Republican politicians on the Court have effectively announced that they can do whatever they want, and they know that they will get away with it. "Activists" does not begin to describe them. They've gone rogue.
I'll give examples so that I don't come off as just ranting. They invented the "major question doctrine" to allow themselves to strike down federal agency actions that they dislike because the agencies, acting pursuant to federal statutes, protect us from pollution and other harms. They allowed Texas to ban abortion while Roe v. Wade was still in effect. They have, so far only temporarily, allowed Idaho's abortion ban to override a federal statute that requires hospitals to provide emergency medical care. Finally, they effectively repealed section 3 of the 14th Amendment so that no state may keep an insurrectionist off its presidential ballot.
Dereliction of Duty - they'd be court martialed if they were in the military...though I doubt any of them have served.
Insurrection
Not literally an insurrection, but, yes, a dereliction of duty to uphold the Constitution. And that makes it a violation of their oath of office and therefore an impeachable offense.
Ah yes,
"Language in thought and Action"
I hope the armed forces are loyal if the militias come out in November. Do I sound too gloomy? Is it not one of the possibilities? Some states won't ratify a Biden win? It's after midnight, I should get some winks.
Its midnight in the Americas.
Will we wake-up?
"Goodnight and Goodluck."
BTW do you recommend the film by that name?
Film?
ЁЯдмЁЯдмЁЯдм